All the boundary options are bad for the DCC-- how do we organize against that? (Any ideas for alternative options?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard from a credible source that one of the quiet reasons they didn’t want to change BCC boundaries is because the FARMS rate has been rising over the recent years at BCC. It reached as high as 26% in the last 3 years, but currently stands at about 22%. BCC has also fallen significantly in rankings in the recent years. Even with current boundaries, BCC could easily reach 30% FARMS in the next 5 years. There was a fear that changing the school’s boundaries, especially in a way that increases FARMS at BCC even more, would accelerate private school usage in the area and cause the school performance to drop tremendously.

If this is true it's absolutely disgusting. What a pack of cowards that are in charge of MCPS. Jfc you all just don't give one single f$k about kids do you? It is all about your reputation and your pathetic careers.

This is over the top. Why the drama?

I’m not the pp but it’s gross and cowardly that they would let the poor schools get poorer in order to save BCC from even a small increase in FARMs students. Really other schools in the DCC are being screwed over majorly while BCC is being gifted their programming. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard from a credible source that one of the quiet reasons they didn’t want to change BCC boundaries is because the FARMS rate has been rising over the recent years at BCC. It reached as high as 26% in the last 3 years, but currently stands at about 22%. BCC has also fallen significantly in rankings in the recent years. Even with current boundaries, BCC could easily reach 30% FARMS in the next 5 years. There was a fear that changing the school’s boundaries, especially in a way that increases FARMS at BCC even more, would accelerate private school usage in the area and cause the school performance to drop tremendously.

If this is true it's absolutely disgusting. What a pack of cowards that are in charge of MCPS. Jfc you all just don't give one single f$k about kids do you? It is all about your reputation and your pathetic careers.

This is over the top. Why the drama?

I’m not the pp but it’s gross and cowardly that they would let the poor schools get poorer in order to save BCC from even a small increase in FARMs students. Really other schools in the DCC are being screwed over majorly while BCC is being gifted their programming. Disgusting.

They may not be so gifted if the demographic change. When I’ve spoken to central office they did not even understand the graduation requirements. I don’t think they are in touch with what’s going on or care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming. or even a lot of this thread. this is not a nefarious statement. it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming. or even a lot of this thread. this is not a nefarious statement. it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.

The regional model hurts DCC schools that have limited courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming. or even a lot of this thread. this is not a nefarious statement. it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.

The regional model hurts DCC schools that have limited courses.

way to prove the point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming. or even a lot of this thread. this is not a nefarious statement. it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.

Oh so it's fine with you if only the boundary changes screw over the DCC and the regional changes just don't make things THAT much worse? What a generous kind person you are s/ As it is kids have to lottery in to other schools to access the same programs that Whitman and BCC have at their home schools. Now they are proposing limiting our kids' access even more. On top of getting the short end of the stick on utilization, demographics and split articulation wrt the boundary study.

[Anonymous]

#MCPSsoMAGA

[Anonymous]

I think MCPS's strategy is to offer boundary and program options that screw over the DCC so badly that when they later "adjust" to offer tiny improvements we are supposed to be grateful for those scraps from the rich schools, instead of angry that we are still being screwed over to protect wealthy people's property values, heaven forbid they lose out.on $100k of their $5 million in retirement savings that is rooted in structural racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming. or even a lot of this thread. this is not a nefarious statement. it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.

Oh so it's fine with you if only the boundary changes screw over the DCC and the regional changes just don't make things THAT much worse? What a generous kind person you are s/ As it is kids have to lottery in to other schools to access the same programs that Whitman and BCC have at their home schools. Now they are proposing limiting our kids' access even more. On top of getting the short end of the stick on utilization, demographics and split articulation wrt the boundary study.

eye roll. yeah so trying to discern what the people in the DCC would like under the set of proposed options is actually trying to understand what could make the problem BETTER. i agree that a certain set of courses should be offered at all schools, and i support making all neighborhood schools better. but that doesn't seem to be in the specific set of possibilities right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS's strategy is to offer boundary and program options that screw over the DCC so badly that when they later "adjust" to offer tiny improvements we are supposed to be grateful for those scraps from the rich schools, instead of angry that we are still being screwed over to protect wealthy people's property values, heaven forbid they lose out.on $100k of their $5 million in retirement savings that is rooted in structural racism.

or they are trolling you like they did to BCC in the first round. So you accept something better than what's offered here but that still ain't great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all innuendo and rumor. This board is pretty baseless frequently.

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.

Quoting the OP:

Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming. or even a lot of this thread. this is not a nefarious statement. it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.

Oh so it's fine with you if only the boundary changes screw over the DCC and the regional changes just don't make things THAT much worse? What a generous kind person you are s/ As it is kids have to lottery in to other schools to access the same programs that Whitman and BCC have at their home schools. Now they are proposing limiting our kids' access even more. On top of getting the short end of the stick on utilization, demographics and split articulation wrt the boundary study.

eye roll. yeah so trying to discern what the people in the DCC would like under the set of proposed options is actually trying to understand what could make the problem BETTER. i agree that a certain set of courses should be offered at all schools, and i support making all neighborhood schools better. but that doesn't seem to be in the specific set of possibilities right now.

Well people in the DCc have different ideas for how to make it better which have been discussed in this and other threads. Stop pretending it hasn't. We aren't a monolith, we are a very diverse community with lots of different strengths and needs. MCPS has chosen to outsource any actual community engagement or analysis to PTAs, which surprise surprise results in super inequitable "solutions".

What could make the problem better? To realize it's 2025 and MCPS needs to do a LOT better on community engagement and do some actual analysis.