Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

They are now inextricably linked, with the regions arbitrarily binding any boundary changes. She shared this information directly at the Kennedy HS engagement meeting last week.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can understand why they are linked -- if there are a bunch of kids leaving/coming into your school through the school choice process, that impacts the boundary utilization estimates.

But the utilization estimates only include "resident students," not students from other schools in the region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

They are now inextricably linked, with the regions arbitrarily binding any boundary changes. She shared this information directly at the Kennedy HS engagement meeting last week.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

This is not a talking point. The BOE met on Thursday and approved Superintendent Taylor's request to make additional boundary maps based on the CIP. This was on livestream and later announced at Kennedy in front of 200 parents. Jeannie Franklin was there and named as the lead point of contact at that meeting for questions on the boundary maps. There was a separate section of the room focused on academic program content, and others were stationed there. She repeatedly mentioned that she is the owner of the survey and leading the map development (based on FLO Analytics information). She said she will likely add more options to the existing survey rather than create a new one. But, that the decision was only made at 6:35 p.m. and they had not spoken about it yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Just because you strongly want something to happen doesn't make it true. MCPS never said that they are rejecting October boundary options.

The position of some DCC posters on this forum in a nutshell is: "We resent W schools and their toxic environment and don't want our kids anywhere near them. However, we would like large parts (the parts that we find undesirable, which is pretty much everybody but us) of our current schools to be magically lifted and dropped into W clusters."

Nah. They want similar academic options for their kids and a reasonable spread of capacity utilization. Just give enough differential funding to each school such that those options are avaialble everywhere, and not just predominantly at Ws, and watch the interest in moving any neighborhood to the west disappear.

Even those with school-aged children from neighborhoods on the borders -- the ones which should be shifted to get to that capacity equilibrium -- likely would prefer to stay with their current communities. It'd be more that some neighborhoods simply must be switched to get to that point where we might largely say goodbye to high numbers of portables and the like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Just because you strongly want something to happen doesn't make it true. MCPS never said that they are rejecting October boundary options.

The position of some DCC posters on this forum in a nutshell is: "We resent W schools and their toxic environment and don't want our kids anywhere near them. However, we would like large parts (the parts that we find undesirable, which is pretty much everybody but us) of our current schools to be magically lifted and dropped into W clusters."

Nah. They want similar academic options for their kids and a reasonable spread of capacity utilization. Just give enough differential funding to each school such that those options are avaialble everywhere, and not just predominantly at Ws, and watch the interest in moving any neighborhood to the west disappear.

Even those with school-aged children from neighborhoods on the borders -- the ones which should be shifted to get to that capacity equilibrium -- likely would prefer to stay with their current communities. It'd be more that some neighborhoods simply must be switched to get to that point where we might largely say goodbye to high numbers of portables and the like.

I think by state law you can't give differential funding outside of special needs and ELL. So that's a non-starter. As such, you have to deal with different school having different needs. You're not going to have a deep set of performing arts classes everywhere, for example, because it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Also, Option D is your utilization best bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand why they are linked -- if there are a bunch of kids leaving/coming into your school through the school choice process, that impacts the boundary utilization estimates.

But the utilization estimates only include "resident students," not students from other schools in the region.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand why they are linked -- if there are a bunch of kids leaving/coming into your school through the school choice process, that impacts the boundary utilization estimates.

But the utilization estimates only include "resident students," not students from other schools in the region.

Right, to get to the utilization rates for the boundary estimates, they assume the end of large-scale school choice, and assume (probably incorrectly) that the flow of students going in and out with the 'programs' will equalize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

They are now inextricably linked, with the regions arbitrarily binding any boundary changes. She shared this information directly at the Kennedy HS engagement meeting last week.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

This is not a talking point. The BOE met on Thursday and approved Superintendent Taylor's request to make additional boundary maps based on the CIP. This was on livestream and later announced at Kennedy in front of 200 parents. Jeannie Franklin was there and named as the lead point of contact at that meeting for questions on the boundary maps. There was a separate section of the room focused on academic program content, and others were stationed there. She repeatedly mentioned that she is the owner of the survey and leading the map development (based on FLO Analytics information). She said she will likely add more options to the existing survey rather than create a new one. But, that the decision was only made at 6:35 p.m. and they had not spoken about it yet.

You must be mixing Jeannie Franklin up with someone else, then. She is the head of the department on consortium choice and application programs. She has been central to the academic programs work the whole way through, but I have never seen her referred to as involved in the boundary study side of things at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

They are now inextricably linked, with the regions arbitrarily binding any boundary changes. She shared this information directly at the Kennedy HS engagement meeting last week.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

This is not a talking point. The BOE met on Thursday and approved Superintendent Taylor's request to make additional boundary maps based on the CIP. This was on livestream and later announced at Kennedy in front of 200 parents. Jeannie Franklin was there and named as the lead point of contact at that meeting for questions on the boundary maps. There was a separate section of the room focused on academic program content, and others were stationed there. She repeatedly mentioned that she is the owner of the survey and leading the map development (based on FLO Analytics information). She said she will likely add more options to the existing survey rather than create a new one. But, that the decision was only made at 6:35 p.m. and they had not spoken about it yet.

You must be mixing Jeannie Franklin up with someone else, then. She is the head of the department on consortium choice and application programs. She has been central to the academic programs work the whole way through, but I have never seen her referred to as involved in the boundary study side of things at all.

You are completely correct. I have the wrong name. I apologize. Will try to get the correct name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

Nice strawman. PP argued that the petition did not support school choice. It obviously does, per the quote from the petition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

Nice strawman. PP argued that the petition did not support school choice. It obviously does, per the quote from the petition.

You can change things with community engagement. The concern is they are taking it away unilaterally not engaging communities about how to change the system equitably.

[Anonymous]

Btw for those who are posting about the DCC without any familiarity with it, it offers programs that are NOT segregated programs. They benefit several hundreds of kids at each school and are interest based. The school choice aspect has positives and negatives. How do we address the negatives without eliminating the positives. Zero work has been done on this question. Why would you take something away and expect the community to not push back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

Nice strawman. PP argued that the petition did not support school choice. It obviously does, per the quote from the petition.

You can change things with community engagement. The concern is they are taking it away unilaterally not engaging communities about how to change the system equitably.

which is 100% not the point being argued about in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Btw for those who are posting about the DCC without any familiarity with it, it offers programs that are NOT segregated programs. They benefit several hundreds of kids at each school and are interest based. The school choice aspect has positives and negatives. How do we address the negatives without eliminating the positives. Zero work has been done on this question. Why would you take something away and expect the community to not push back?

The negatives being that it does lead to greater levels of segregation along race/class, as the better resourced kids in the consortium lottery to other schools. It's why Kennedy is so under-utilized.