Could a new consortium make boundary changes more acceptable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s force the entire county be divided into consortiums. No reason schools like Sherwood and WJ can stay out of the NEC and the DCC.

They're going to do this but call them regions instead. Each region will have special programs.

Yes, this seems to be the direction Taylor wants to go in. Hopefully the consortiums are smaller than the DCC. I think the DCC doesn't work so great great because it's too big. If there are more than 3 high schools in the consortium, it's too big.

Who said the DCC doesn't work so great?

Many people. Who said it works great?

Many people. If you want to go to your home Hs no one is stopping you.

And if you don't want to go to your home school, you're essentially subjected to a lottery which does not work in your favor.

Isn't this the same situation you would be in if there was no consortium, though?

If there was no consortium PP would be stuck with a home school they don’t want and no other choices except for magnets.

I am the PP and you’re right. But the key is that then all the other STEM kids would also be at Einstein, and it would be easier to advocate for advanced programming. Removing 70% of STEM kids really sucks for the 30% left behind.

[Anonymous]

For those complaining about Einstein: Just stop it - you have access to IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It certainly feels like regional options are the way MCPS is going and I’m open to it. As a MCPS teacher, I see that community is not created by attending a certain school/the closest school to you. It is created by active family participation and their willingness to work hard to create opportunities for connection and relationship building. Someone mentioned private schools are ruining their area’s sense of community - but I know families who leave MCPS and choose private school specifically for the tight knit sense of community they provide. My school has both a neighborhood side and an immersion program (choice after lottery). There are wayyyy more parent volunteers/requests for family involvement from those that chose the immersion program compared to those zoned into the school. I think MCPS sees if parents choose a program because they believe in it, they are more actively engaged. In this way, regional programs may create MORE community because of active family involvement versus passive zoned school placement.

Of course they are. Immersion parents disproportionately UMC with resources to make that choice that's more complicated than sending their kid to the local school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1

Taking out 10 out of 20 kids interested in higher level math cours means, 10 kids who did not get lucky can not take higher level math course becasue school does not have 20 kids for form a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s force the entire county be divided into consortiums. No reason schools like Sherwood and WJ can stay out of the NEC and the DCC.

They're going to do this but call them regions instead. Each region will have special programs.

Yes, this seems to be the direction Taylor wants to go in. Hopefully the consortiums are smaller than the DCC. I think the DCC doesn't work so great great because it's too big. If there are more than 3 high schools in the consortium, it's too big.

Who said the DCC doesn't work so great?

Many people. Who said it works great?

Many people. If you want to go to your home Hs no one is stopping you.

And if you don't want to go to your home school, you're essentially subjected to a lottery which does not work in your favor.

Isn't this the same situation you would be in if there was no consortium, though?

If there was no consortium PP would be stuck with a home school they don’t want and no other choices except for magnets.

I am the PP and you’re right. But the key is that then all the other STEM kids would also be at Einstein, and it would be easier to advocate for advanced programming. Removing 70% of STEM kids really sucks for the 30% left behind.

+1

Consortium system is hugely negative for kids who are left behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Consortia serve only two purposes - to make parents feel like they have some choice in their high school, while also making elected BOE members not draw "hard" boundary lines, which can make constituents angry.

They cost MCPS millions in transportation costs per year while also completely killing the feeling of community in schools.

+1,000,000,000,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

Thats not why Blake is overcrowded.
Blake has the better reputation because it’s more white than the other 2 options. It’s been this way for years unfortunately. I’m in the NEC and literally everyone I talk to
Says they want Blake. Their kids don’t even dance/do theater.

[Anonymous]

Most kids rank schools based off who has the best sports teams and where they best friend/boyfriend is going. It’s billed as this process similar to choosing a college but for the VAST majority of students, they don’t care about the special programs offered. So the county pays millions to send 3-5 buses to many neighborhoods all over the county for what good reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

Thats not why Blake is overcrowded.
Blake has the better reputation because it’s more white than the other 2 options. It’s been this way for years unfortunately. I’m in the NEC and literally everyone I talk to
Says they want Blake. Their kids don’t even dance/do theater.

Exactly. I worked in the NEC for 16 years. Blake is majority white, PB majority black, and SB majority Hispanic. Isn’t this exactly what the consortium idea is supposed to prevent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

Thats not why Blake is overcrowded.
Blake has the better reputation because it’s more white than the other 2 options. It’s been this way for years unfortunately. I’m in the NEC and literally everyone I talk to
Says they want Blake. Their kids don’t even dance/do theater.

Yup. Meanwhile, Springbrook is underutilized with a toxic principal that MCPS refuses to do anything about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

Thats not why Blake is overcrowded.
Blake has the better reputation because it’s more white than the other 2 options. It’s been this way for years unfortunately. I’m in the NEC and literally everyone I talk to
Says they want Blake. Their kids don’t even dance/do theater.

Exactly. I worked in the NEC for 16 years. Blake is majority white, PB majority black, and SB majority Hispanic. Isn’t this exactly what the consortium idea is supposed to prevent?

Blake is actually 11% white, which is higher than Paint Branch (3.4%) or Springbrook (4.4%), but certainly not the majority. The demographics table in this PDF is informative: https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP26_Chapter4NEC.pdf

[Anonymous]

I think the special programs offered in these consortia give kids a chance to really shine and differentiate themselves for college applications. And it just gives them a reason to get excited to go to school in the morning. The more engaged they are, the better they will do.

This is kind of like living and learning programs in college which may have nothing to do with your major but give a sense of community. Proven to be highly successful.

Strongly in favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s force the entire county be divided into consortiums. No reason schools like Sherwood and WJ can stay out of the NEC and the DCC.

They're going to do this but call them regions instead. Each region will have special programs.

Yes, this seems to be the direction Taylor wants to go in. Hopefully the consortiums are smaller than the DCC. I think the DCC doesn't work so great great because it's too big. If there are more than 3 high schools in the consortium, it's too big.

Who said the DCC doesn't work so great?

Many people. Who said it works great?

Many people. If you want to go to your home Hs no one is stopping you.

And if you don't want to go to your home school, you're essentially subjected to a lottery which does not work in your favor.

I don’t think you know how the DCC works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the special programs offered in these consortia give kids a chance to really shine and differentiate themselves for college applications. And it just gives them a reason to get excited to go to school in the morning. The more engaged they are, the better they will do.

This is kind of like living and learning programs in college which may have nothing to do with your major but give a sense of community. Proven to be highly successful.

Strongly in favor.

This is PP. but still not enough to make me like option 3. It’s just too much bussing and shifting the kids around. Make the boundaries based on equal weighting of four factors (as required under MCPS policy), then we can look at consortia/magnets to improve demographics. MCPS was successful at this in the past.