Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how the DCC makes it a lot easier to access high-level STEM classes than the proposed new model. As far as I can tell, the 2 schools in the DCC that have a lot of STEM classes are Blair and Wheaton- is that right? Now these 2 schools will be in different regions, but there will be other schools in those regions with strong STEM offerings.

Also the DCC doesn't mean you can choose whichever school you want; you have to be selected from the lottery.

Location and with the new model less kids will have the opportunity to go. Bussing kids to Whitman is a nightmare. You have to get them back and forth to their home school and for when they go late or early you are fully responsible for transportation regardless of your job, other kids, and going cross county in traffic. Wheaton and Whitman are much closer. Plus, the culture is very different. We could afford to live in a w school area and choose not to.

And, if you don’t get into the magnets you can try to lottery or cosa in and still take stem. Wheaton and Blair are 10-15 one way, Whitman could easily be 30 minutes driving directly. More either way traffic.

The time complaints ring hollow when many of the DCC kids already choose 45+ minute bus rides.

What you are saying is: "A small number of DCC kids currently in high school have chosen long commutes to access the same courses Whitman and BCC kids have at their home schools, so it's okay to make future DCC kids travel further". What kind of a POS are you?

Whitman and BCC kids will not be traveling, just the DCC kids.

A few will go to Blair if the magnet stays the same. They do now, at any rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

I think it's fine for a countywide petition to be really simple and mirror the MCCPTA language. But I do think it would be best for someone outside the DCC to start it, who has connections to non-DCC PTAs, listservs, Facebook groups, etc where they can share it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

You have time to post here, so if the petition is important to you, you'll advertise it and get support. I didn't sign it nor did anyone I know, as the wording made no sense, and it didn't represent everyone, just a select few. Separating the boundary study and programs, yes, but some of the other stuff, no.

I don't think the program analysis needs to be paused, and changes do need to be made, but the regional model fails many and creates more obstacles than it helps.

So you think they should go ahead with the regional program changes rather than pause them, even though you think it creates more obstacles than it helps?

I think they need to dump the regional plan as it looks now and re-examine everything with community input. See what families want in their schools. Do the IB schools want IB? Want more STEM? What are the kids' interests? What are the community's interests? For schools that don't have a strong STEM program, for example, how can we serve those kids to get their needs and wants met? Clustering schools together is fine. It's not fine when you expect families to go across town, driving their own kids multiple times a day for stem. And, you limit the number of students who can go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Idk it sounds like Blair, Northwood, and Einstein just want more APs at their home schools. Like that’s it. Forget all this busing around and lotterying and programs. More APs than the baseline from what is presently proposed. This does run into the question of demand, and I would agree that if there isn’t demand you shouldn’t offer the course. Idk maybe just stick all the money into dedicated bus service for MC for when the classes don’t have enough demand.

What is the "baseline"? All they are saying is every school should offer calculus. What calculus? Is it AP? If so AB and BC or just BC. And is the baseline all in person or are they going to make some classes virtual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

You have time to post here, so if the petition is important to you, you'll advertise it and get support. I didn't sign it nor did anyone I know, as the wording made no sense, and it didn't represent everyone, just a select few. Separating the boundary study and programs, yes, but some of the other stuff, no.

I don't think the program analysis needs to be paused, and changes do need to be made, but the regional model fails many and creates more obstacles than it helps.

So you think they should go ahead with the regional program changes rather than pause them, even though you think it creates more obstacles than it helps?

I think they need to dump the regional plan as it looks now and re-examine everything with community input. See what families want in their schools. Do the IB schools want IB? Want more STEM? What are the kids' interests? What are the community's interests? For schools that don't have a strong STEM program, for example, how can we serve those kids to get their needs and wants met? Clustering schools together is fine. It's not fine when you expect families to go across town, driving their own kids multiple times a day for stem. And, you limit the number of students who can go.

+1 it's really bad they didn't do this analysis at all. Just a deceptive analysis of "programs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk it sounds like Blair, Northwood, and Einstein just want more APs at their home schools. Like that’s it. Forget all this busing around and lotterying and programs. More APs than the baseline from what is presently proposed. This does run into the question of demand, and I would agree that if there isn’t demand you shouldn’t offer the course. Idk maybe just stick all the money into dedicated bus service for MC for when the classes don’t have enough demand.

What is the "baseline"? All they are saying is every school should offer calculus. What calculus? Is it AP? If so AB and BC or just BC. And is the baseline all in person or are they going to make some classes virtual?

Baseline that they’ve described is Calc BC. I have only ever heard vague suggestions of doing something virtual. I wouldn’t oppose it for individual classes if that’s the only thing that can happen, but virtual is by no means ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

I think it's fine for a countywide petition to be really simple and mirror the MCCPTA language. But I do think it would be best for someone outside the DCC to start it, who has connections to non-DCC PTAs, listservs, Facebook groups, etc where they can share it.

This regional model impacts the DCC the most. The DCC schools are not getting more funding, and with the reduction in students, serious cuts will have to be made. These schools are already lacking in course offerings, so what can be cut? To place "magnets" at Northwood or Einstein for the arts makes no sense when there is no additional funding for staff. They cannot offer magnet-level music or theater without additional teaching staff and funding. How is all of this going to work?

It doesn't matter who does the petition. Reality is none of the matters as Taylor, central office and the BOE are going through with this model regardless of community feedback. There will be a lot of flight from the DCC schools (including us), and that will leave these schools in even worse shape if the wealthier, smarter students/families leave. There is very little at our home school and when that is reduced, it puts families in an impossible situation when their kids needs don't get met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk it sounds like Blair, Northwood, and Einstein just want more APs at their home schools. Like that’s it. Forget all this busing around and lotterying and programs. More APs than the baseline from what is presently proposed. This does run into the question of demand, and I would agree that if there isn’t demand you shouldn’t offer the course. Idk maybe just stick all the money into dedicated bus service for MC for when the classes don’t have enough demand.

What is the "baseline"? All they are saying is every school should offer calculus. What calculus? Is it AP? If so AB and BC or just BC. And is the baseline all in person or are they going to make some classes virtual?

Baseline that they’ve described is Calc BC. I have only ever heard vague suggestions of doing something virtual. I wouldn’t oppose it for individual classes if that’s the only thing that can happen, but virtual is by no means ideal.

They are not bringing back virtual. They've been clear otherwise, the virtual school families that. Offering multiple post BC classes at some schools and not others is not equity. Why should some schools get multiple advanced math classes, and other schools max out at BC? The lack of stem and not having access to Wheaton and Blair is a huge issue for us. We made the mistake with our first child, but we will not do that again.

MCPS also doesn't allow you to privately pay for virtual or private classes and accept them as credit. There is a way to do it for some AP classes but nothing outside of AP or beyond. Nor do they allow for independent study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk it sounds like Blair, Northwood, and Einstein just want more APs at their home schools. Like that’s it. Forget all this busing around and lotterying and programs. More APs than the baseline from what is presently proposed. This does run into the question of demand, and I would agree that if there isn’t demand you shouldn’t offer the course. Idk maybe just stick all the money into dedicated bus service for MC for when the classes don’t have enough demand.

What is the "baseline"? All they are saying is every school should offer calculus. What calculus? Is it AP? If so AB and BC or just BC. And is the baseline all in person or are they going to make some classes virtual?

Baseline that they’ve described is Calc BC. I have only ever heard vague suggestions of doing something virtual. I wouldn’t oppose it for individual classes if that’s the only thing that can happen, but virtual is by no means ideal.

And, BC is what schools have now. They are presenting it as they are expanding offerings when they are saying they are going to keep what is there and not add anything more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

You have time to post here, so if the petition is important to you, you'll advertise it and get support. I didn't sign it nor did anyone I know, as the wording made no sense, and it didn't represent everyone, just a select few. Separating the boundary study and programs, yes, but some of the other stuff, no.

I don't think the program analysis needs to be paused, and changes do need to be made, but the regional model fails many and creates more obstacles than it helps.

So you think they should go ahead with the regional program changes rather than pause them, even though you think it creates more obstacles than it helps?

I think they need to dump the regional plan as it looks now and re-examine everything with community input. See what families want in their schools. Do the IB schools want IB? Want more STEM? What are the kids' interests? What are the community's interests? For schools that don't have a strong STEM program, for example, how can we serve those kids to get their needs and wants met? Clustering schools together is fine. It's not fine when you expect families to go across town, driving their own kids multiple times a day for stem. And, you limit the number of students who can go.

+1 it's really bad they didn't do this analysis at all. Just a deceptive analysis of "programs".

What bothers me the most is that Taylor came in with his listening sessions talking about community engagement, transparency, accountability, etc. and he's done the exact opposite of that. I suspect the board hired him to do this and they are partly behind it and no one is going to back down and regroup, knowing this is not right for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

I think it's fine for a countywide petition to be really simple and mirror the MCCPTA language. But I do think it would be best for someone outside the DCC to start it, who has connections to non-DCC PTAs, listservs, Facebook groups, etc where they can share it.

This regional model impacts the DCC the most. The DCC schools are not getting more funding, and with the reduction in students, serious cuts will have to be made. These schools are already lacking in course offerings, so what can be cut? To place "magnets" at Northwood or Einstein for the arts makes no sense when there is no additional funding for staff. They cannot offer magnet-level music or theater without additional teaching staff and funding. How is all of this going to work?

It doesn't matter who does the petition. Reality is none of the matters as Taylor, central office and the BOE are going through with this model regardless of community feedback. There will be a lot of flight from the DCC schools (including us), and that will leave these schools in even worse shape if the wealthier, smarter students/families leave. There is very little at our home school and when that is reduced, it puts families in an impossible situation when their kids needs don't get met.

When you say it affects DCC “the most,” how do you know and what are your metrics? Have you pills or talked to anyone not in region 1? See, you can make the plea to ditch the regions with using the language that you are uniquely hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

You have time to post here, so if the petition is important to you, you'll advertise it and get support. I didn't sign it nor did anyone I know, as the wording made no sense, and it didn't represent everyone, just a select few. Separating the boundary study and programs, yes, but some of the other stuff, no.

I don't think the program analysis needs to be paused, and changes do need to be made, but the regional model fails many and creates more obstacles than it helps.

So you think they should go ahead with the regional program changes rather than pause them, even though you think it creates more obstacles than it helps?

I think they need to dump the regional plan as it looks now and re-examine everything with community input. See what families want in their schools. Do the IB schools want IB? Want more STEM? What are the kids' interests? What are the community's interests? For schools that don't have a strong STEM program, for example, how can we serve those kids to get their needs and wants met? Clustering schools together is fine. It's not fine when you expect families to go across town, driving their own kids multiple times a day for stem. And, you limit the number of students who can go.

What you say makes sense, but then why do you oppose creating a countywide petition calling for MCPS not to push this current plan through this year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

I think it's fine for a countywide petition to be really simple and mirror the MCCPTA language. But I do think it would be best for someone outside the DCC to start it, who has connections to non-DCC PTAs, listservs, Facebook groups, etc where they can share it.

This regional model impacts the DCC the most. The DCC schools are not getting more funding, and with the reduction in students, serious cuts will have to be made. These schools are already lacking in course offerings, so what can be cut? To place "magnets" at Northwood or Einstein for the arts makes no sense when there is no additional funding for staff. They cannot offer magnet-level music or theater without additional teaching staff and funding. How is all of this going to work?

It doesn't matter who does the petition. Reality is none of the matters as Taylor, central office and the BOE are going through with this model regardless of community feedback. There will be a lot of flight from the DCC schools (including us), and that will leave these schools in even worse shape if the wealthier, smarter students/families leave. There is very little at our home school and when that is reduced, it puts families in an impossible situation when their kids needs don't get met.

This nonsense is why no one can take you seriously. It does not affect the DCC most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone just make a countywide petition already calling to push back the program analysis a year and gather more community feedback on it, so we can stop arguing about why a petition written to maximize the number of DCC signers doesn't talk much about and resonate with people elsewhere in the county?

Nobody is stopping you from doing this except you.

I do not have the time to invest in making and promoting a countywide petition when I and everyone I know is in the DCC area and this current petition works fine for us so a new one would feel redundant to most people in my personal networks. (I also don't have a detailed enough understanding of the specific ways schools in other parts of the county will be harmed by rushing the current plans through, just the more general reasons that affect all of us-- although maybe it's fine for the countywide petition to just be very simple and general regarding the need to slow down and get community input before finalizing anything, maybe copying some of the language from the MCCPTA resolution?)

I can see that a countywide one is needed, and will help spread the word if one is created, but I'm not the one to write it and advance it. (But all these people who keep saying "I support pausing the program analysis but don't want to sign this petition because it's too DCC-focused" seem like the perfect people to do it?)

I think it's fine for a countywide petition to be really simple and mirror the MCCPTA language. But I do think it would be best for someone outside the DCC to start it, who has connections to non-DCC PTAs, listservs, Facebook groups, etc where they can share it.

This regional model impacts the DCC the most. The DCC schools are not getting more funding, and with the reduction in students, serious cuts will have to be made. These schools are already lacking in course offerings, so what can be cut? To place "magnets" at Northwood or Einstein for the arts makes no sense when there is no additional funding for staff. They cannot offer magnet-level music or theater without additional teaching staff and funding. How is all of this going to work?

It doesn't matter who does the petition. Reality is none of the matters as Taylor, central office and the BOE are going through with this model regardless of community feedback. There will be a lot of flight from the DCC schools (including us), and that will leave these schools in even worse shape if the wealthier, smarter students/families leave. There is very little at our home school and when that is reduced, it puts families in an impossible situation when their kids needs don't get met.

When you say it affects DCC “the most,” how do you know and what are your metrics? Have you pills or talked to anyone not in region 1? See, you can make the plea to ditch the regions with using the language that you are uniquely hurt.

Folks have explained this at length but you choose not to listen.

Clearly, you don't want DCC folks to speak out about the obvious negative impacts of these proposals on the DCC that don't impact the other schools in the Woodward study. Sorry, not sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idk it sounds like Blair, Northwood, and Einstein just want more APs at their home schools. Like that’s it. Forget all this busing around and lotterying and programs. More APs than the baseline from what is presently proposed. This does run into the question of demand, and I would agree that if there isn’t demand you shouldn’t offer the course. Idk maybe just stick all the money into dedicated bus service for MC for when the classes don’t have enough demand.

What is the "baseline"? All they are saying is every school should offer calculus. What calculus? Is it AP? If so AB and BC or just BC. And is the baseline all in person or are they going to make some classes virtual?

Baseline that they’ve described is Calc BC. I have only ever heard vague suggestions of doing something virtual. I wouldn’t oppose it for individual classes if that’s the only thing that can happen, but virtual is by no means ideal.

They are not bringing back virtual. They've been clear otherwise, the virtual school families that. Offering multiple post BC classes at some schools and not others is not equity. Why should some schools get multiple advanced math classes, and other schools max out at BC? The lack of stem and not having access to Wheaton and Blair is a huge issue for us. We made the mistake with our first child, but we will not do that again.

MCPS also doesn't allow you to privately pay for virtual or private classes and accept them as credit. There is a way to do it for some AP classes but nothing outside of AP or beyond. Nor do they allow for independent study.

Yes, you, who I’m guessing is at Einstein, want more APs and MVC. No, they cannot all be offered. Yes, some method of offering those classes should occur. I understand you seem unwilling to deal with reality and will repeat that virtual and MC are impossible for you. No, we don’t get to choose how our tax dollars are spent beyond voting.