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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

Then give it to the other schools, don't take it away from us. It would cost less than this whole regional program plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

His way of promoting equity is to take choice away from the DCC and NEC and replace it with application magnets managed by the central office, while adding more magnets as enrichments to schools that already have strong programming. That's not equity. It's stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

If you are suggesting that it's equitable for only the higher-needs schools to have access to the consortial model, then why don't schools like Seneca Valley, Watkins Mills, Gaithersburg, etc. have access as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

Then give it to the other schools, don't take it away from us. It would cost less than this whole regional program plan.

I doubt that. The regional program would allow only a limited number of students to attend other schools. If the consortium model were in place for all schools, many more students would be moving around all over the county, and the resulting transportation costs would be much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

Then give it to the other schools, don't take it away from us. It would cost less than this whole regional program plan.

I doubt that. The regional program would allow only a limited number of students to attend other schools. If the consortium model were in place for all schools, many more students would be moving around all over the county, and the resulting transportation costs would be much higher.

Yes, it will cost a lot more than the current system. They have said so but aren't transparent with costs. There is a huge difference in schools and some schools have it all, and other schools have very little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

Taylor is doing something for the sake of doing it as he has to make his mark to keep his job. Depending on the BOE they are either behind it and fully supporting it or don't care as they plan to move on election time and will leave the mess for the new BOE members to clean up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

Taylor is doing something for the sake of doing it as he has to make his mark to keep his job. Depending on the BOE they are either behind it and fully supporting it or don't care as they plan to move on election time and will leave the mess for the new BOE members to clean up.

This is exactly how I see it as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

If you are suggesting that it's equitable for only the higher-needs schools to have access to the consortial model, then why don't schools like Seneca Valley, Watkins Mills, Gaithersburg, etc. have access as well?

Are you saying it's equitable for all schools, rich and poor, to have the same resources? We can do this all day b!ch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

Taylor is doing something for the sake of doing it as he has to make his mark to keep his job. Depending on the BOE they are either behind it and fully supporting it or don't care as they plan to move on election time and will leave the mess for the new BOE members to clean up.

This is exactly how I see it as well.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

Taylor is doing something for the sake of doing it as he has to make his mark to keep his job. Depending on the BOE they are either behind it and fully supporting it or don't care as they plan to move on election time and will leave the mess for the new BOE members to clean up.

This +1. Except that current BOE members clearly knows that the ultimate chaos and disaster will be paid by student, parents and taxpayers, and they don't care; while Taylor is blinded by his ego and a**-kisses from the central office. We are dooomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

It's not inequitable. It does lack uniformity, but uniformity is not equity. Sounds like Taylor needs a dictionary.

Taylor is doing something for the sake of doing it as he has to make his mark to keep his job. Depending on the BOE they are either behind it and fully supporting it or don't care as they plan to move on election time and will leave the mess for the new BOE members to clean up.

Keep his job? Or get a better job, leaving MCPS to deal with his mistakes without him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

For those of us not in the DCC, explain how this system is not inequitable for our kids and why we should support retaining it for yours when we don’t had access to anything similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

For those of us not in the DCC, explain how this system is not inequitable for our kids and why we should support retaining it for yours when we don’t had access to anything similar.

Folks, don't quarrel against each other for equitable access to existing excellent programs, as the regional model is not trying to replicate in any sense. Please watch the Oct. 16 BOE meeting for their updated sample curricula (they are supposed to share more). If you delve into the sample programs, you'll soon realize they are just trying to create 6X CTE programs. Your kids will have more access to CTE if everything is implemented perfectly, and the existing well-known academically rigorous programs will be completely destroyed.

For folks living outside of DCC/NEC and feel unfair that you don't have enough access to CTE programs, this is your chance to get equitable access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

Then give it to the other schools, don't take it away from us. It would cost less than this whole regional program plan.

I doubt that. The regional program would allow only a limited number of students to attend other schools. If the consortium model were in place for all schools, many more students would be moving around all over the county, and the resulting transportation costs would be much higher.

While we don't have current numbers (which is ridiculous that they haven't been presented yet), we do have data from the Metis report. It found about $1.5M in transportation costs for the DCC and NEC combined, so let's round that up to maybe $5M in 2015 dollars for 6 sets of consortia, using regular neighborhood stops.

It also found that the cost of central stop transportation to just 5 high schools for programs, plus 3 middle schools, was a combined $1.2 million. The new regional model will require buses to 27 high schools, which would project out to $4-$6M in 2015 dollars. And that's with central stop transportation, when MCPS has said the goal is short bus rides which would require additional stops and bump the cost up significantly.

And that doesn't count all the added costs of staffing and supporting these new regional programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I think its great to advocate, I'm not sure if this is really that bad for Einstein. In some ways doesn't the DCC create a situation where the science/math oriented kids tend to go to other schools? So if you limit choice as proposed by the regional model, wouldn't you have a more balanced student body that supports a more balanced set of courses?

Correct but even then if you don't get into a magnet or lottery you are out of luck. Your choice is to go to MC or go without.

+1 The regional model would ironically limit choice, and not just for DCC. DCC is great because over the decades, parent, student, and staff have developed a magnet system for arts, engineering, etc, that we deeply value, not to mention a great community. To dismantle it without the opportunity for robust public input is irresponsible and wrong.

But that's the point according to Taylor--DCC/NEC have had access to this special system that the majority of MCPS schools have not had access to, which he says is inequitable.

For those of us not in the DCC, explain how this system is not inequitable for our kids and why we should support retaining it for yours when we don’t had access to anything similar.

Your schools have a wide variety of course offerings, clubs and sports so your kids can get their needs met at your school. Our schools only have the absolute minimum and the higher achieving kids try to get into other schools to get their needs met.