Could a new consortium make boundary changes more acceptable?

[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:Let’s force the entire county be divided into consortiums. No reason schools like Sherwood and WJ can stay out of the NEC and the DCC.

They're going to do this but call them regions instead. Each region will have special programs.

Yes, this seems to be the direction Taylor wants to go in. Hopefully the consortiums are smaller than the DCC. I think the DCC doesn't work so great great because it's too big. If there are more than 3 high schools in the consortium, it's too big.

Who said the DCC doesn't work so great?

Many people. Who said it works great?

Many people. If you want to go to your home Hs no one is stopping you.

And if you don't want to go to your home school, you're essentially subjected to a lottery which does not work in your favor.

Isn't this the same situation you would be in if there was no consortium, though?

If there was no consortium PP would be stuck with a home school they don’t want and no other choices except for magnets.

I am the PP and you’re right. But the key is that then all the other STEM kids would also be at Einstein, and it would be easier to advocate for advanced programming. Removing 70% of STEM kids really sucks for the 30% left behind.

+1

Consortium system is hugely negative for kids who are left behind.

Magnets are hugely negative for kids who are left behind.
CES are hugely negative for kids who are left behind
Team sports are hugely negative for kids who are left behind.
What's new?

Team sports they pick the best.

Magnet/CES are not the best students. It's a lottery and better to abandon this.

+1

It's not even picking the best and then has huge negative for any high school which can't offer higher level math due to many leaving for magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

Thats not why Blake is overcrowded.
Blake has the better reputation because it’s more white than the other 2 options. It’s been this way for years unfortunately. I’m in the NEC and literally everyone I talk to
Says they want Blake. Their kids don’t even dance/do theater.

Exactly. I worked in the NEC for 16 years. Blake is majority white, PB majority black, and SB majority Hispanic. Isn’t this exactly what the consortium idea is supposed to prevent?

Blake is actually 11% white, which is higher than Paint Branch (3.4%) or Springbrook (4.4%), but certainly not the majority. The demographics table in this PDF is informative: https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP26_Chapter4NEC.pdf

I’m the Poster u responded to. I’m not disputing your facts but perception on the “ better school” is ingrained and hadn’t changed in years. Even though the demographics have.
PBHS has come a long way way but can’t shake its reputation from 20 years ago. Blake has gone downhill but it’s still gotthe reputation it had 20 years ago.
It’s hard to change peoples perceptions and biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed about the limitations to lotteries/DCC, as a family zoned for Einstein. MCPS should focus more on equity between individual high schools (and robust options within individual high schools) and less on the special programs that end up being available to very few kids across the county. They sound great in theory but in practice, they leave too many kids out.

+1 as an NEC parent, I agree. Blake is overcrowded due to the high interest in their dance program, but Paint Branch and Springbrook kids who are interested are SOL.

Thats not why Blake is overcrowded.
Blake has the better reputation because it’s more white than the other 2 options. It’s been this way for years unfortunately. I’m in the NEC and literally everyone I talk to
Says they want Blake. Their kids don’t even dance/do theater.

Exactly. I worked in the NEC for 16 years. Blake is majority white, PB majority black, and SB majority Hispanic. Isn’t this exactly what the consortium idea is supposed to prevent?

Blake is 40% Black, 34% Hispanic, 11% White so it’s not a majority white school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consortia serve only two purposes - to make parents feel like they have some choice in their high school, while also making elected BOE members not draw "hard" boundary lines, which can make constituents angry.

They cost MCPS millions in transportation costs per year while also completely killing the feeling of community in schools.

To be fair, I think private schools are doing that more than the consortiums.

No, the consortia is definitely hurting that feeling of community. In my neighborhood alone, we have kids split between Northwood, Kennedy, Blair and Wheaton. There's no way you can build community when kids from that same neighborhood are split across that many schools.

I’m in the NEC and more than half of the kids in the neighborhood are in private school. Those kids don’t even know their neighbors.

What do these private school families look like compared to h NEC families they’re trying to avoid? That tells you everything. Adding Sherwood to the NEC would fix some of this

I’m sure you already know the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the DCC is that it seems like you have access to stuff but you don’t.

We are zoned for Einstein. It’s a great school and neighbors love it, but it doesn’t have advanced STEM programming. If you want that, MCPS says, go to Wheaton. But despite putting Wheaton first on the lottery, my STEM kid didn’t get assigned Wheaton. So he goes to Einstein (without any close friends) and can’t get access to programs available to peers because he lost a lottery. Einstein says they don’t have enough interest to have advanced STEM classes, and they are probably mostly right, but that’s because some of those kids were shipped elsewhere.

He has made friends and will be fine. But the DCC process will always result in things like this. Having specialized high schools is fine, but only if access is real for every kid.

I completely agree with you. The DCC is great when you are in bound for a school that offers what your kid wants to take. When they created the DCC there were fewer kids and the only school people actually wanted to attend was Blair. With such a large number of kids, more special programs, and most DCC schools being at or over capacity, it isn't so simple to just go to Wheaton if you want stem classes. They really should be way more transparent about this to families at the information session nights.

The answer the school and mcps say is to go to MC but you have to provide transportation. It may be ok for senior year but not jr year when they still need classes at school for graduation. The expectation is you buy you kid a car. It’s at least a 90 minute ride to Mc on public bus one way for us when we checked. So, 3-4 hours a day 3 days a week for one class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those complaining about Einstein: Just stop it - you have access to IB.

I am the PP who mentioned Einstein/Stem. You’re right, and for my younger kid, that will be an amazing option.

But it doesn’t address the problems the DCC caused for my older STEM kid.

For non stem kids, ib is great but it’s not for stem. It’s a huge problem if you cannot lottery to Blair or Wheaton. Ib math is not equal.

It is a huge misconception that IB is not for STEM. Around the world IB is considered as one of the most rigorous programs when it comes to preparing students for college education whether in humanities or STEM. In my friend circle there are kids that did IB in MCPS and ended up not only going to colleges like CMU/Cornell/etc. to study engineering/CS/premed, but doing very well there. These kids tell me that IB is a great equalizer - one does not have to worry about the high school as much since IBO has already evaluated and certified the program, and the students will be in a different league when it comes to college admissions. They also tell me that the issue is not with STEM in IB, but with the fact that in IB one can not get away with only focussing on STEM. If a student can not handle any more rigor in humanities than what is available in a normal MCPS curriculum, then IB is not for them.

Granted, there are some corner cases; for the occasional kid that is supremely gifted (i.e.) wired differently and is doing way advanced math (DC knew a kid that was ready for MV calculus in ninth grade) IB may not be the best option in MCPS. But I assume we are not talking about such kids, are we?