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:Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ. Move some Kensington kids from WJ into Einstein (if that makes Einstein too overcrowded, make small tweaks like maybe keeping the Flora Singer kids together and sending them to Northwood.) Move some kids from Kennedy into Wheaton to address overcrowding if needed. Done.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

It's too late at this point. They are going to go for one of the 4, perhaps with some tweaks. The time to organize was over the summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ. Move some Kensington kids from WJ into Einstein (if that makes Einstein too overcrowded, make small tweaks like maybe keeping the Flora Singer kids together and sending them to Northwood.) Move some kids from Kennedy into Wheaton to address overcrowding if needed. Done.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

I live in Bethesda and did not respond because my last kid will soon be out of MCPS. But in all my years of volunteering, and attending the general County-wide assemblies of school PTAs, I've noticed that parents are so much better organized in well-to-do districts. I think it's because those groups have more people who know how the world works, and which leverage has a chance to work. They know how to organize people, how to communicate, etc.

They know people who know people. They are connected with the money. Nothing talks more than money when it comes to elected officials.

They aren’t connected to the consultants or to Taylor or the central office. They have the same number of reps on the BOE as someone in the dcc.

As you know, BOE members are all elected at large. Yes, money talks. Are you really this deluded?

Also making decisions based on which monster screams the loudest is abhorrent policy but that's politics I guess.

No, you are wrong. I'm the Bethesda PP. I never saw or heard anyone use personal connections to the Board members, Central Office or bribe anyone, or do something shady, or even remotely borderline. A lot of these organizers and representatives of the PTAs boards I sat on were lawyers who are trained to argue cases. They are confident, they speak well and intelligently, and their communities have mobilized to produce fact sheets and in-depth research on the consequences of proposed plans which will affect their schools - adverse or advantageous. It goes further than just MCPS boundaries, which in years past we fought long and hard for. I recall our worst fight - which we lost - was with downtown Bethesda developers of high rises, who swore up and down that very few families would move into their rentals and condos (we knew otherwise) and overcrowd the schools. Now THAT was an unfair fight, because some of us happen to know that developers do not hesitate to bribe the right decision-makers!

You have no idea what goes on, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

Is coordinating through DCC PTAs an option or are they required to stay neutral on this sort of thing? Don't know if they would even get involved but just curious.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t the whole point of the new proposed region 6 model to get rid of the DCC and Northeast Consortiums, because they created inequity for all the other students who didn’t have the same level of school choice that kids in the consortium schools did? I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it seems that arguing that one or two specific regions deserve a greater level of school choice than others is not a winnable argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the whole point of the new proposed region 6 model to get rid of the DCC and Northeast Consortiums, because they created inequity for all the other students who didn’t have the same level of school choice that kids in the consortium schools did? I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it seems that arguing that one or two specific regions deserve a greater level of school choice than others is not a winnable argument.

The focus here is on the boundary study, but as a DCC parent I totally support other regions being structured as consortia as well if they want to be-- I haven't heard anyone in the DCC saying that we deserve to be a consortium but other regions don't.

[Anonymous]

What is split articulation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is split articulation?

Dividing up a class of students in one elementary between multiple middle schools or dividing a class of middle school students between multiple high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ. Move some Kensington kids from WJ into Einstein (if that makes Einstein too overcrowded, make small tweaks like maybe keeping the Flora Singer kids together and sending them to Northwood.) Move some kids from Kennedy into Wheaton to address overcrowding if needed. Done.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

It's too late at this point. They are going to go for one of the 4, perhaps with some tweaks. The time to organize was over the summer.

This is what alarms me. Not sure how we could have organized against options that were not a problem in round 1, only to find issues in the final round.

[Anonymous]

I can’t speak for the other clusters and I have no dog in this fight because my youngest will have just graduated from BCC, but the reason BCC wasn’t touched in this round was because we. already had a contentious boundary study not too long ago when they built Silver Creek MS not too long ago and because Rosemary Hills (K-2) splits into two different schools for 3rd-5th - Chevy Chase ES and North Chevy Chase. That’s how MCPS summarized the feedback from BCC at the BOE meetings this summer. The feedback from other clusters seemed more generic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t speak for the other clusters and I have no dog in this fight because my youngest will have just graduated from BCC, but the reason BCC wasn’t touched in this round was because we. already had a contentious boundary study not too long ago when they built Silver Creek MS not too long ago and because Rosemary Hills (K-2) splits into two different schools for 3rd-5th - Chevy Chase ES and North Chevy Chase. That’s how MCPS summarized the feedback from BCC at the BOE meetings this summer. The feedback from other clusters seemed more generic.

Tell us...that fight about which communities would benefit from a brand new middle school...did it result in any previously B-CC-zoned neighborhood being rezoned to another high school? Or B-CC becoming over-capacity by absorbing neighborhoods on the "wrong side of the tracks"?

No?

You do realize that other communities currently face split articulations.

Right?

And these are reasons, in the face of all the problems facing schools/communities to the east, not to consider touching B-CC? And as a happy consequence, since B-CC can't be touched and the Whitman pyramid really only can be involved if B-CC is involved, not to consider touching them, either?

Don't get us started on the dog that remains in the fight for empty-nesters. (The nest, that is...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instead of screaming on DCUM threads, some of the posters here would be better served using their energy to actually advocate for their communities. MCPS and Flo refined the options based on the community feedback (which you would know if you participated in the community engagement events, survey, BOE meetings, and feedback sessions) and against the new constraints of the Region 6 model. If you didn’t open your mouth in round 1, don’t expect them to have taken your preferences into account. Everyone had the chance to give feedback and advocate, and they continue to have the opportunity to do so now. Put your energy where it belongs - it’s not here on DCUM.

At those meetings, Flo said that they had mechanisms to counter the disproportionate representation of some communities in the feedback.

Somehow, bowing to those communities still occurred. Despite other communities putting their energies into it.

One wonders how that might happen. Hmm....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ. Move some Kensington kids from WJ into Einstein (if that makes Einstein too overcrowded, make small tweaks like maybe keeping the Flora Singer kids together and sending them to Northwood.) Move some kids from Kennedy into Wheaton to address overcrowding if needed. Done.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

It's too late at this point. They are going to go for one of the 4, perhaps with some tweaks. The time to organize was over the summer.

This is what alarms me. Not sure how we could have organized against options that were not a problem in round 1, only to find issues in the final round.

Agreed- the options for our neighborhood are completely different than in round 1, and the changes associated with the program analysis weren't apparent either (and still aren't). The way the processes are occuring simultaneously is confusing for a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t speak for the other clusters and I have no dog in this fight because my youngest will have just graduated from BCC, but the reason BCC wasn’t touched in this round was because we. already had a contentious boundary study not too long ago when they built Silver Creek MS not too long ago and because Rosemary Hills (K-2) splits into two different schools for 3rd-5th - Chevy Chase ES and North Chevy Chase. That’s how MCPS summarized the feedback from BCC at the BOE meetings this summer. The feedback from other clusters seemed more generic.

Tell us...that fight about which communities would benefit from a brand new middle school...did it result in any previously B-CC-zoned neighborhood being rezoned to another high school? Or B-CC becoming over-capacity by absorbing neighborhoods on the "wrong side of the tracks"?

No?

You do realize that other communities currently face split articulations.

Right?

And these are reasons, in the face of all the problems facing schools/communities to the east, not to consider touching B-CC? And as a happy consequence, since B-CC can't be touched and the Whitman pyramid really only can be involved if B-CC is involved, not to consider touching them, either?

Don't get us started on the dog that remains in the fight for empty-nesters. (The nest, that is...)

Why would B-CC be changed when it already meets the utilization, transportation and demographic criteria? I know people like to lump B-CC and Whitman together on this board, but B-CC is actually diverse. Look at the data tables. Part of what's hard about this for the DCC is that it's so affected by the program study that I think a lot of people were more focused on that rather than the boundary program. A friend was telling me about a meeting at Einstein that had something like 200 parents, so it's not like DCC parents there can't mobilize. They were just focused on a different priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

What issues do you see as common for the "DCC Community" to advocate around in regards to the boundary study and program analysis? The reality is the DCC is large with a lot of economic diversity. My home is in-bounds for Einstein. I've had kids at Blair and Einstein and of course know families with kids at other DCC schools. These are middle class and upper middle class families (the most likely to know about these issues and to advocate), and I'm not sure there would be a lot of agreement amongst them about what we should be advocating for in terms of the DCC community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

What issues do you see as common for the "DCC Community" to advocate around in regards to the boundary study and program analysis? The reality is the DCC is large with a lot of economic diversity. My home is in-bounds for Einstein. I've had kids at Blair and Einstein and of course know families with kids at other DCC schools. These are middle class and upper middle class families (the most likely to know about these issues and to advocate), and I'm not sure there would be a lot of agreement amongst them about what we should be advocating for in terms of the DCC community.

DP - not getting rid of the DCC, for one? I don’t know any parents here who want that. And if they insist on getting rid of it, DCC high schools should *all* have advanced academic options for kids.

Those seem like pretty universal issues.