Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

You could read this thread to find your answers. It’s been discussed.

No one actually has “beef” with the DCC.

I saw zero direct quotes. Mostly people seem to just hate seeing the term "DCC" so the fact it is mentioned in the petition I guess makes it a no-go for you.

Can’t help you then.

Of course you can, you can explain what part of the petition you don't like. Since you are unwilling to do so I can I only assume you are just trying to stymie the petition for your own reasons, not because there is anything wrong with the petition.

Bullying the petition doesn't help things. You aren't interested in having a discussion just bullying people into signing. The BOE doesn't care. This is going to happen and families need to plan accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.

Most people don't care about Whitman. They use Whitman to show the disparities between the schools. The location of Whitman makes it such that it really isn't included.

The focus should be exclusively on the impact to the DCC, the issues with course offerings, the limited slots to go to a regional school, transportation and more.

The boundary and regional decisions should be separate.

They need to ask families what they want at their schools if they are going to a home school model and make a plan for students whose needs cannot be met at their home schools (AP, science, math, special needs, etc - the range) and not put the expectation on the families to figure it out or move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

The difference between BCC and the DCC is that families HAVE to use the lottery if kids want specific courses. BCC offers those courses. We'd love it if our home schools had the same offerings as BCC and other schools, but they don't so the lottery is the only way to make that happen. They need to drop the Spanish immersion programs and offer Spanish classes a few times a week to all students (or other languages).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

The difference between BCC and the DCC is that families HAVE to use the lottery if kids want specific courses. BCC offers those courses. We'd love it if our home schools had the same offerings as BCC and other schools, but they don't so the lottery is the only way to make that happen. They need to drop the Spanish immersion programs and offer Spanish classes a few times a week to all students (or other languages).

It does not follow that having the same offerings as BCC necessitates dropping immersion programs. You do not make sense.

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand why the DCC is so insistent that we should keep the DCC. I am definitely okay with delaying the program study and moving ahead with the boundary changes, but then the DCC needs to accept that they will be assigned to one school and only one school and not get school choice. And that this idea is equitable and that every school should be able to meet the needs of their population without being 100% the same.

If a child is ready for college-level classes, they should have access to them through MC unless there is a large enough cohort at their school. MCPS should not be required to have all college-level classes just in case a small group of children are ready. When parents CHOOSE to push their child ahead, that is a choice that might have consequences. We have a free bus system that can take students to MC or kids can carpool.

Stop whining and be a parent. Figure it out, or since your child is such a genius, let your child figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.

DP here. I didn't get your logic. Your concern is regarding boundary options, but the petition is about slowing down the regional program roll-out, yes?

Yes. If you just had a petition about slowing down the regional program roll out, I’d probably be in full support. I think nearly everyone would. But this petition slips in a few positions/suggestions about the boundary study that I oppose. So I won’t sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

Wow. That’s a bombshell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.

DP here. I didn't get your logic. Your concern is regarding boundary options, but the petition is about slowing down the regional program roll-out, yes?

Yes. If you just had a petition about slowing down the regional program roll out, I’d probably be in full support. I think nearly everyone would. But this petition slips in a few positions/suggestions about the boundary study that I oppose. So I won’t sign.

So you disagree with what some other people want. Not everyone is going to agree to that, and that's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

You could read this thread to find your answers. It’s been discussed.

No one actually has “beef” with the DCC.

I saw zero direct quotes. Mostly people seem to just hate seeing the term "DCC" so the fact it is mentioned in the petition I guess makes it a no-go for you.

Can’t help you then.

Of course you can, you can explain what part of the petition you don't like. Since you are unwilling to do so I can I only assume you are just trying to stymie the petition for your own reasons, not because there is anything wrong with the petition.

Bullying the petition doesn't help things. You aren't interested in having a discussion just bullying people into signing. The BOE doesn't care. This is going to happen and families need to plan accordingly.

I dgaf if you sign. Don't sign if you don't agree with it. But if you are going to publicly oppose it, be transparent about why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.

DP here. I didn't get your logic. Your concern is regarding boundary options, but the petition is about slowing down the regional program roll-out, yes?

She doesn't want to sign anything that questions the second round boundary options. She likes them because they will maximize her property value. She cares more about her property value than about education, though she will never admit it.

Honestly I get it. I agree with everything in the petition and signed it, but I also understand that some people who agree on "delay the program changes" will disagree on the other items-- when we are calling for things to be more fair, a lot of the folks who are advantaged in the current options are not going to support changing them (some will because it's the right thing to do, which is great, but realistically a lot of them will not )

I do think there is very broad consensus across the county that the regional changes should not be passed in their current form at this speed without community input. I wish there was another more general petition just about delaying the boundary changes that could also be circulated so we could get the highest numbers possible on that petition (but no, before you ask, I'm not going to create one.)

You keep saying you want a petition limited to the program analysis but you wanting that doesn't obligate the creators of this petition to stop advocating for what they and many other people want.

Make your own petition. Stop condescendingly telling people it is in their best interests to stop advocating for their communities because you are too lazy to advocate how you want to advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

Wow. That’s a bombshell.

Not really but if it makes you feel good to think so go ahead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

Wow. That’s a bombshell.

This is not a bombshell. Just because she lives in DCC and her kids are in the immersion program, does not mean they are trying to escape DCC. You sound like that weirdo who thinks that high schools having the same offerings necessities the deletion of the immersion program. You sound jealous and like you're trying to personally attack the person who started the petition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

Wow. That’s a bombshell.

This is not a bombshell. Just because she lives in DCC and her kids are in the immersion program, does not mean they are trying to escape DCC. You sound like that weirdo who thinks that high schools having the same offerings necessities the deletion of the immersion program. You sound jealous and like you're trying to personally attack the person who started the petition.

And we are cycling back to the gaslighting strategy again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

Wow. That’s a bombshell.

This is not a bombshell. Just because she lives in DCC and her kids are in the immersion program, does not mean they are trying to escape DCC. You sound like that weirdo who thinks that high schools having the same offerings necessities the deletion of the immersion program. You sound jealous and like you're trying to personally attack the person who started the petition.

And we are cycling back to the gaslighting strategy again.

DP
Your desperation to discredit this petition is palpable. But you are just coming off as classist and pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries

The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.

Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.

I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.

I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.

I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.

You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.

My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!

Wow. That’s a bombshell.

This is not a bombshell. Just because she lives in DCC and her kids are in the immersion program, does not mean they are trying to escape DCC. You sound like that weirdo who thinks that high schools having the same offerings necessities the deletion of the immersion program. You sound jealous and like you're trying to personally attack the person who started the petition.

And we are cycling back to the gaslighting strategy again.

DP
Your desperation to discredit this petition is palpable. But you are just coming off as classist and pathetic.

You’re putting your head in the sand. The fact that only 900 people have signed when EVERYONE wants the regional program to slow down means that the survey did not hit the mark. Reflect on that.