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: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.

Nope. In fact it's the DCC kids who are not top academic kids who will lose out the most. Those kids will still get to go to regional academic magnets that are similar to what they had in the past, albeit not the same. But all the ordinary kids who picked a DCC school because it had the electives or extracurriculars or sports teams they wanted that were weak or unavailable at their home school, because they liked the size of the school or the culture, because there was a local program that appealed to them, or for whatever other reason-- all that will be taken away and they'll be sent to their home school no matter how good a fit it is or not, with their only way of leaving being to apply for an interest-based program at another school that they don't really care about yet eats up most or all of their electives in high school.

[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.

Nope. In fact it's the DCC kids who are not top academic kids who will lose out the most. Those kids will still get to go to regional academic magnets that are similar to what they had in the past, albeit not the same. But all the ordinary kids who picked a DCC school because it had the electives or extracurriculars or sports teams they wanted that were weak or unavailable at their home school, because they liked the size of the school or the culture, because there was a local program that appealed to them, or for whatever other reason-- all that will be taken away and they'll be sent to their home school no matter how good a fit it is or not, with their only way of leaving being to apply for an interest-based program at another school that they don't really care about yet eats up most or all of their electives in high school.

What percentage of DCC students go to a different school from their home school?

[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.

Nope. In fact it's the DCC kids who are not top academic kids who will lose out the most. Those kids will still get to go to regional academic magnets that are similar to what they had in the past, albeit not the same. But all the ordinary kids who picked a DCC school because it had the electives or extracurriculars or sports teams they wanted that were weak or unavailable at their home school, because they liked the size of the school or the culture, because there was a local program that appealed to them, or for whatever other reason-- all that will be taken away and they'll be sent to their home school no matter how good a fit it is or not, with their only way of leaving being to apply for an interest-based program at another school that they don't really care about yet eats up most or all of their electives in high school.

What percentage of DCC students go to a different school from their home school?

I don't think they publish that regularly, but the Metis Report a decade ago found that three-quarters of DCC kids got their first choice and that 42% of kids chose their base area school as their first choice. (89% of NEC students got their first choice and about half of the kids chose their base area school as their first choice.)

[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.

Nope. In fact it's the DCC kids who are not top academic kids who will lose out the most. Those kids will still get to go to regional academic magnets that are similar to what they had in the past, albeit not the same. But all the ordinary kids who picked a DCC school because it had the electives or extracurriculars or sports teams they wanted that were weak or unavailable at their home school, because they liked the size of the school or the culture, because there was a local program that appealed to them, or for whatever other reason-- all that will be taken away and they'll be sent to their home school no matter how good a fit it is or not, with their only way of leaving being to apply for an interest-based program at another school that they don't really care about yet eats up most or all of their electives in high school.

What percentage of DCC students go to a different school from their home school?

I don't think they publish that regularly, but the Metis Report a decade ago found that three-quarters of DCC kids got their first choice and that 42% of kids chose their base area school as their first choice. (89% of NEC students got their first choice and about half of the kids chose their base area school as their first choice.)

Sorry are you saying that up to 58% of kids in DCC schools go to different schools from their base?