Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

This is why MCPS is likely to succeed in its reorganization efforts. Everyone "wants mine" and will not come together for straightforward bottom line asks that would benefit the entire community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

The likely reason for anyone to be comfortable with these current options (or to see them as a great improvement) is that you actually have NO changes! The current maps have virtually ZERO changes for BCC and Whitman. Kensington obviously cried to MCPS about having to go to Einstein and got put back in West county. If you like these maps more than the last, it is probably because your FARMS, ELL, White, and Asian rates stay the same, and you are getting new programs. DCC is asking for MCPS to spread Woodward boundary changes across the county, and not focus all of the instability, disruption, program loss, and split articulation in one under resourced place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

+1 The October options were created PRIOR to the CIP plan, so they need to be redone. On Thursday evening, Jeannie Franklin (survey owner and primary creator of the maps) said that she will be creating "at least two, if not a few" more options in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

+1 The October options were created PRIOR to the CIP plan, so they need to be redone. On Thursday evening, Jeannie Franklin (survey owner and primary creator of the maps) said that she will be creating "at least two, if not a few" more options in November.

The October options showed us all who MCPS is prioritizing. DCC is fighting back, sorry not sorry you don't like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

The likely reason for anyone to be comfortable with these current options (or to see them as a great improvement) is that you actually have NO changes! The current maps have virtually ZERO changes for BCC and Whitman. Kensington obviously cried to MCPS about having to go to Einstein and got put back in West county. If you like these maps more than the last, it is probably because your FARMS, ELL, White, and Asian rates stay the same, and you are getting new programs. DCC is asking for MCPS to spread Woodward boundary changes across the county, and not focus all of the instability, disruption, program loss, and split articulation in one under resourced place.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

This is why MCPS is likely to succeed in its reorganization efforts. Everyone "wants mine" and will not come together for straightforward bottom line asks that would benefit the entire community.

MCPS is a diverse system. We're not all going to "come together" behind the WJ PTA. MCPS should not be outsourcing community engagement to the PTAs. In this day and age their lack of efforts to engage BIPOC communities or even track how many BIPOC families have provided feedback is completely disgraceful. That's why I genuinely believe Thomas Taylor is a racist. We all know racism is embedded in our society, that we have to be anti racist to change anything and Taylor said no thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

Not true. The new options coming in November will be adding to, not replacing, the October options. They are to include the not-yet-decided scenarios for SSIMS and Crown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

+1 The October options were created PRIOR to the CIP plan, so they need to be redone. On Thursday evening, Jeannie Franklin (survey owner and primary creator of the maps) said that she will be creating "at least two, if not a few" more options in November.

No, Jeannie Franklin is on the regional program project, not the boundary studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

Not true. The new options coming in November will be adding to, not replacing, the October options. They are to include the not-yet-decided scenarios for SSIMS and Crown.

+1
Every set of options is tied to something else. The capacity calculations and enrollment projections the initial options are different than those in the second round. I think the only options available will be the October options or some very similar new options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reads like you only care about DCC schools. You want to keep your own school choice while not allowing the rest of the county to have the same.

When I read the original post above, I was ready to sign in a heartbeat…until I read the letter. Why can’t we try to get the best for everyone?

Did you even read the petition? The parents who drafted it are BCC and DCC cluster parents.

The DCC is over. This petition is NOT trying to advocate to keep the DCC. It was pointing out the sudden dismantling of the DCC, without any warning or opportunity for feedback. It simply says slow this process down and focus on the boundaries first, then work on programs.

The petition language was focused on the east part of the county because that is where 99% of the changes were being made in the Woodward boundary study. BCC and Whitman had nearly 0 changes, and we all know those will be "fixed".

Disagree. The petition reads as though the drafters want to retain the DCC. If it says that the DCC accepts the end of the DCC, then that would require some sideways reading of it.

How many times is DCC mentioned in the letter? Twice.

Look at the bottom of the letter. There are three asks. Do any of them ask to keep the DCC?

It basically reads as "we reject the dismantling of the DCC". Arguing that people don't interpret the letter in the way you MEANT rather than the way it READS is some both-sides-of-your-mouth legal crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, sorry. I support many of the suggestions (separate out program changes from boundary study, slow it down), but no, I don’t think they should toss out all of the October boundary options, which were a great improvement over the first ones for many many people. I don’t read this as the DCC wanting to keep their current arrangement, but I do read it as them wanting to be prioritized over other schools. Which totally makes sense for them, but not for my kids. They are free to advocate but I’m certainly not going to sign a petition against the interests of my community.

What you are saying is the October options prioritized your community and it is "selfish" for DCC families to want our communities which have MORE needs to be prioritized. Smh

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.

Not true. The new options coming in November will be adding to, not replacing, the October options. They are to include the not-yet-decided scenarios for SSIMS and Crown.

+1
Every set of options is tied to something else. The capacity calculations and enrollment projections the initial options are different than those in the second round. I think the only options available will be the October options or some very similar new options.

+2 the November options are only going to deal with SSIMS and Crown as a holding school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not supportive of school choice which this petition supports, so not signing. School choice leads to degradation of less desired schools and limits the options of less resources kids.

I am not sure which petition you are referring to. But respectfully, I suggest you read the One Step at a Time petition again. It DOES NOT advocate for school choice. It simply points out the unilateral elimination of the DCC. The requests being made are at the bottom - separate the boundary and academic programs implementation, delay programs rollout, and add more boundary options that spread change across the county.

Retention of the DCC = school choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not supportive of school choice which this petition supports, so not signing. School choice leads to degradation of less desired schools and limits the options of less resources kids.

I am not sure which petition you are referring to. But respectfully, I suggest you read the One Step at a Time petition again. It DOES NOT advocate for school choice. It simply points out the unilateral elimination of the DCC. The requests being made are at the bottom - separate the boundary and academic programs implementation, delay programs rollout, and add more boundary options that spread change across the county.

from the petition:
"We are particularly concerned about:...
...The unilateral elimination of school choice within the Downcounty Consortium, which has long provided families with flexibility and access to specialized programs."