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: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.

There are going to be very few slots so reality is kids will go to their homeschools and go without.

[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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

[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.

If Taylor really wanted to make his mark, he should focus on the abysmal math and ELA overall proficiency rates for MCPS students. Only 36% proficient in math and 57% proficient in ELA.

[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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

No, you don't get it. The DCC doesn't just have magnets, it has academies in all the schools that all the students can access. They can lottery into schools based on their interest in the academies. Maybe educate yourself before attacking people in communities you look down on but don't actually know anything about.

[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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

I think that’s right. And there’s something about MVC.

[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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

You clearly are ignorant because this is not how the DCC system works. You are assuming it works similarly to non-DCC, and it does not. Do some homework before voicing a worthless opinion please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

You clearly are ignorant because this is not how the DCC system works. You are assuming it works similarly to non-DCC, and it does not. Do some homework before voicing a worthless opinion please.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

No, you don't get it. The DCC doesn't just have magnets, it has academies in all the schools that all the students can access. They can lottery into schools based on their interest in the academies. Maybe educate yourself before attacking people in communities you look down on but don't actually know anything about.

+1000 Perfectly said. You are very patient to explain it to these uneducated PPs.

[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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

Many houses in the dcc are now 800+ and regardless of house price all kids deserve an equal education that meets their needs. Your million dollar house taxes is the same as ours only you get more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

I think that’s right. And there’s something about MVC.

If MVC, so science, computer science, engineering and stem is not important let’s remove it from all schools. Simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

I think that’s right. And there’s something about MVC.

If MVC, so science, computer science, engineering and stem is not important let’s remove it from all schools. Simple.

Agree that MVC doesn’t need to be offered in any high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

I think that’s right. And there’s something about MVC.

If MVC, so science, computer science, engineering and stem is not important let’s remove it from all schools. Simple.

Agree that MVC doesn’t need to be offered in any high school.

The problem is that in MCPS you need four years of math to graduate, so are you ok with them reducing that number to 3 as even if kids take statistics they don't have enough classes to graduate. What is your solution?

Are you just angry because your childrend didn't take higher math?

[Anonymous]

I think every student should take Statistics.

[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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

PP here. No, you don't get what I mean (apologies if my language before is causing any confusion). You as a non-DCC parent and the DCC parents here in this thread are both tricked by MCPS. The regional model is not as what claimed to be replicating existing successful programs by 6X. The new programs are driven by the CTE requirements. In the future, every local school will lose MVC, Physics C and all other advanced STEM courses because of the "equity" concern, unless your child is enrolled in the future STEM program or your local HS happens to host the STEM program. Similarly, if your local HS doesn't host an art program, your kids cannot take AP Drawing or those advanced arts courses anymore even if there's enough cohort of students interested and capable to do so at your local school. This is an absolute los to everyone.

Please tune in the Oct. 16 BOE meeting for the new updates. They won't share everything, but the things they have to share will leak the trace to what I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If I’m reading between the lines, it sounds like the parents who bought a cheaper house in the DCC and worked the system to get into more rigorous classes in the DCC magnets now feel screwed because MCPS is changing the model. We’re talking about a narrow cohort of kids who now need another option and not the vast majority of the DCC kids. Do I have the right? Because if so, then that sounds awfully privileged.

PP here. No, you don't get what I mean (apologies if my language before is causing any confusion). You as a non-DCC parent and the DCC parents here in this thread are both tricked by MCPS. The regional model is not as what claimed to be replicating existing successful programs by 6X. The new programs are driven by the CTE requirements. In the future, every local school will lose MVC, Physics C and all other advanced STEM courses because of the "equity" concern, unless your child is enrolled in the future STEM program or your local HS happens to host the STEM program. Similarly, if your local HS doesn't host an art program, your kids cannot take AP Drawing or those advanced arts courses anymore even if there's enough cohort of students interested and capable to do so at your local school. This is an absolute los to everyone.

Please tune in the Oct. 16 BOE meeting for the new updates. They won't share everything, but the things they have to share will leak the trace to what I mean.

Actually this is quite helpful. Thank you. I don’t know what programs would be lost at our nonDCC school cluster but it’s a question I plan to ask our PTA. That might be a good way to gain support from nonDCC parents if the benefits are unclear but the costs / losses are.