Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

[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 like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

Wow. Well good luck to you.

[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 like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

Preferring that they don’t staff a new school or put students in it….there have to be better representatives of what DCC thinks of the boundary options.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

Preferring that they don’t staff a new school or put students in it….there have to be better representatives of what DCC thinks of the boundary options.

That's not what is being said. They need to staff a school and put students into it but there are a lot of unintended consequences. Its not going to hurt your kids, but it will hurt others. You don't seem to get the seperate an unequal and this plan will make it even worse.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

Preferring that they don’t staff a new school or put students in it….there have to be better representatives of what DCC thinks of the boundary options.

Hi, yes there are, the DCC PTAs are active and speaking out, much as that may shock you

[Anonymous]

A big problem I see is Region 3 schools seem to have double to triple the number of split articulation schools compared to Region 1 schools. That should not happen. MCPS should employ split articulation in all regions or none. Region 3 schools are also overpopulated even with bloated #s listed at Wheaton. I’m so glad there is a new school to address the overcrowding - just need to find the balance so no school is 100%+ while another is 80% filled. There is construction everywhere in the county. No schools should be 100% full when you’ve just added a new school!

Also - be kind. It’s so easy. Hate reading the unsupportive messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A big problem I see is Region 3 schools seem to have double to triple the number of split articulation schools compared to Region 1 schools. That should not happen. MCPS should employ split articulation in all regions or none. Region 3 schools are also overpopulated even with bloated #s listed at Wheaton. I’m so glad there is a new school to address the overcrowding - just need to find the balance so no school is 100%+ while another is 80% filled. There is construction everywhere in the county. No schools should be 100% full when you’ve just added a new school!

Also - be kind. It’s so easy. Hate reading the unsupportive messages.

It's not a region 1 vs region 3 issue, it's a richer/west vs DCC issue. Except in option B, there's a ton of split articulation at Northwood, Einstein, and Blair (especially Northwood.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A big problem I see is Region 3 schools seem to have double to triple the number of split articulation schools compared to Region 1 schools. That should not happen. MCPS should employ split articulation in all regions or none. Region 3 schools are also overpopulated even with bloated #s listed at Wheaton. I’m so glad there is a new school to address the overcrowding - just need to find the balance so no school is 100%+ while another is 80% filled. There is construction everywhere in the county. No schools should be 100% full when you’ve just added a new school!

Also - be kind. It’s so easy. Hate reading the unsupportive messages.

It's not a region 1 vs region 3 issue, it's a richer/west vs DCC issue. Except in option B, there's a ton of split articulation at Northwood, Einstein, and Blair (especially Northwood.)

I don't have an issue with split articulation but boundaries make no sense and have students traveling much further and that's especially bad for lower income kids who don't have cars or easy access to transportation back and forth to school for clubs and sports. In the DCC now kids go to different HS and they are split up. The issue is the reduction in staffing is going to to lead to more inequities as without the staffing they will have to make reductions and what will those be?

[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 like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

They are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

Every HS will have less offerings
s because they will have less teachers. MCPS has to staff 2 new buildings plus the Damascus expansion. They have to balance the budget somewhere for the increased costs of these program studies and additional bus routes with new buildings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

Every HS will have less offerings
s because they will have less teachers. MCPS has to staff 2 new buildings plus the Damascus expansion. They have to balance the budget somewhere for the increased costs of these program studies and additional bus routes with new buildings

They will just get more money from the county council who never says no.

I not sure how they can reduce the course offerings if they are aready limited.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

They are?

Theater and music will go to Northwood.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

They are?

Theater and music will go to Northwood.

Currently, both Einstein and Northwood have performing arts "academies" that draw students from throughout the DCC. Einstein also has the countywide visual arts magnet. The regional model proposes:
- Eliminating the DCC, so students in DCC schools will no longer be able to lottery into different DCC schools, they will need to apply for specific programs with limited space in order to attend a school other than their home school. This could weaken "local" programs like the performing arts program at Einstein because even though it is not a magnet or criteria based program, it benefits from attracting students interested in performing arts from other schools.
- Making existing countywide magnets regional and replicating them in each region, so Einstein's Visual Arts magnet will be a criteria based magnet serving Region 1 instead of countywide
- placing a new regional criteria based performing arts magnet at Northwood

They are not "removing the arts" from Einstein but the decades old performing arts program may be weakened because it will only draw students in the Einstein catchment area. The visual arts magnet will remain albeit as a regional rather than countywide magnet.