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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The entire plan is that all high schools should have advanced academic options for kids! Or are you the poster who defines "advanced academic options" to mean solely offering MVC?

DP but I for one would rather have the advanced classes offered at all schools rather than go through the DCC choice process and potentially end up at a school that doesn't have them. Maybe that's where some of the advocacy should focus- e.g., I think there is concern that by Einstein getting smaller, there wouldn't be enough students interested in certain advanced classes to offer them. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to enforce the same minimum at each school when the total number of students differs that much? Just a thought.

The point is that MCPS has been clear that every school will offer at least AP Calculus BC. I don't think it is unrealistic to say "If your kid wants to go beyond AP Calculus BC, please consider one of these magnet programs."

The same goes for a kid who wants to take three dance periods a day. That kid should apply to a performing arts magnet.

It's FINE for schools to specialize, actually.

It's fine to have specialized schools...as long as access to each specialty is reasonably equivalent for each student in the school district, as well as access to each set of advanced classes across core subjects. In this sense, the regions/program analysis holds promise if constructed with that principle in mind, but fails quite miserably if it doesn't really fulfill that aim, leaving the have/have-not dichotomy we see persisting in MCPS

We can't expect residents to move for access to a public service within a district. That district is MCPS, not any particular pyramid/cluster or consortium.

PS -- Following your example, with Math being a core subject, suggesting that one should look at a magnet to go beyond Calc BC is fine as long as:

1) There are enough such magnet seats to accommodate any within the magnet catchment who might reasonably desire/need that access (and not rely on an academically unnecessary AB before BC requirement/push to reduce numbers artificially), and

2) Local (non-magnet) offerings that alternately might address this are equivalent across schools.

Rinse and repeat for more advanced English, Social Studies & Science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The entire plan is that all high schools should have advanced academic options for kids! Or are you the poster who defines "advanced academic options" to mean solely offering MVC?

DP but I for one would rather have the advanced classes offered at all schools rather than go through the DCC choice process and potentially end up at a school that doesn't have them. Maybe that's where some of the advocacy should focus- e.g., I think there is concern that by Einstein getting smaller, there wouldn't be enough students interested in certain advanced classes to offer them. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to enforce the same minimum at each school when the total number of students differs that much? Just a thought.

The point is that MCPS has been clear that every school will offer at least AP Calculus BC. I don't think it is unrealistic to say "If your kid wants to go beyond AP Calculus BC, please consider one of these magnet programs."

The same goes for a kid who wants to take three dance periods a day. That kid should apply to a performing arts magnet.

It's FINE for schools to specialize, actually.

It's fine to have specialized schools...as long as access to each specialty is reasonably equivalent for each student in the school district, as well as access to each set of advanced classes across core subjects. In this sense, the regions/program analysis holds promise if constructed with that principle in mind, but fails quite miserably if it doesn't really fulfill that aim, leaving the have/have-not dichotomy we see persisting in MCPS

We can't expect residents to move for access to a public service within a district. That district is MCPS, not any particular pyramid/cluster or consortium.

PS -- Following your example, with Math being a core subject, suggesting that one should look at a magnet to go beyond Calc BC is fine as long as:

1) There are enough such magnet seats to accommodate any within the magnet catchment who might reasonably desire/need that access (and not rely on an academically unnecessary AB before BC requirement/push to reduce numbers artificially), and

2) Local (non-magnet) offerings that alternately might address this are equivalent across schools.

Rinse and repeat for more advanced English, Social Studies & Science.

At a minimum MCPS should align the HS school schedules and bus kids to other schools if their needs cannot be met at their home school for math, science, STEM, arts, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

So, then why have it at any school? We should equalize all the schools and cut out everything that isn't offered at all schools. Why should your kids get access to advanced classes and others should not? Our tax dollars fund your schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

So, then why have it at any school? We should equalize all the schools and cut out everything that isn't offered at all schools. Why should your kids get access to advanced classes and others should not? Our tax dollars fund your schools.

Look I'm not against having MVC at Einstein. I'm for investing more resources to have more classes at Einstein. However, the notion that adding MVC to Einstein is a way to "balance all needs" is preposterous. The overall academic outcomes at Einstein are awful. Only 30% of students are proficient in math! MVC is not the answer to that problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is some but the problem is most of the PTA families kids will graduate and this not impact them.

Also, many of the DCC PTAs are not as well staffed, engaged and organized as their Walter Johnson, Whitman and B-CC counterparts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is some but the problem is most of the PTA families kids will graduate and this not impact them.

Also, many of the DCC PTAs are not as well staffed, engaged and organized as their Walter Johnson, Whitman and B-CC counterparts.

Not as many people who can afford to be SAHMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

So, then why have it at any school? We should equalize all the schools and cut out everything that isn't offered at all schools. Why should your kids get access to advanced classes and others should not? Our tax dollars fund your schools.

I’d be fine with not offering it anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

So, then why have it at any school? We should equalize all the schools and cut out everything that isn't offered at all schools. Why should your kids get access to advanced classes and others should not? Our tax dollars fund your schools.

Look I'm not against having MVC at Einstein. I'm for investing more resources to have more classes at Einstein. However, the notion that adding MVC to Einstein is a way to "balance all needs" is preposterous. The overall academic outcomes at Einstein are awful. Only 30% of students are proficient in math! MVC is not the answer to that problem.

Are you paying attention or just arguing to argue? With the DCC, you can apply to magnets and lottery into other schools. The bulk of the smarter kids who don't care about the arts go to Blair or Wheaton, hence why you have lower scores, as those kids are not there to balance the test scores. If they don't have the course offerings, families will not choose Einstein, especially if there is no arts program and will either try to cosa, move or go private. If you don't offer it to those 30%, then there is no way to increase scores and improve how the students perform.

Fixing Einstein means looking at what's going on at the ES and MS levels and strengthening them to get these kids reading, writing, and on grade level math at each grade, and especially when they leave ES, then MS. Many HS kids went through multiple bad curriculum that did not teach the foundation, and they fell through the cracks. Einstein cannot fix this as these kids missed out on many years of remediation and education. The kids doing well are either very bright or have parents who supplemented or got tutors to fill in the gaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is some but the problem is most of the PTA families kids will graduate and this not impact them.

Also, many of the DCC PTAs are not as well staffed, engaged and organized as their Walter Johnson, Whitman and B-CC counterparts.

Not as many people who can afford to be SAHMs.

Most DCC PTA's are not full of SAHM but some are more welcoming than others.

[Anonymous]

Exactly. MVC at Einstein or for no one. This is what the DCC families should focus on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is some but the problem is most of the PTA families kids will graduate and this not impact them.

Also, many of the DCC PTAs are not as well staffed, engaged and organized as their Walter Johnson, Whitman and B-CC counterparts.

Not as many people who can afford to be SAHMs.

This is really not it. Most of the PTA folks at WJ are working parents. Not many SAHMs running things there. There are just more type A folks who want to be involved. Also more native-born Americans who appreciate and understand the importance of PTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

So, then why have it at any school? We should equalize all the schools and cut out everything that isn't offered at all schools. Why should your kids get access to advanced classes and others should not? Our tax dollars fund your schools.

Look I'm not against having MVC at Einstein. I'm for investing more resources to have more classes at Einstein. However, the notion that adding MVC to Einstein is a way to "balance all needs" is preposterous. The overall academic outcomes at Einstein are awful. Only 30% of students are proficient in math! MVC is not the answer to that problem.

Are you paying attention or just arguing to argue? With the DCC, you can apply to magnets and lottery into other schools. The bulk of the smarter kids who don't care about the arts go to Blair or Wheaton, hence why you have lower scores, as those kids are not there to balance the test scores. If they don't have the course offerings, families will not choose Einstein, especially if there is no arts program and will either try to cosa, move or go private. If you don't offer it to those 30%, then there is no way to increase scores and improve how the students perform.

Fixing Einstein means looking at what's going on at the ES and MS levels and strengthening them to get these kids reading, writing, and on grade level math at each grade, and especially when they leave ES, then MS. Many HS kids went through multiple bad curriculum that did not teach the foundation, and they fell through the cracks. Einstein cannot fix this as these kids missed out on many years of remediation and education. The kids doing well are either very bright or have parents who supplemented or got tutors to fill in the gaps.

I'm not arguing to argue. I fundamentally disagree that offering one course that a tiny percentage of students will ever take is the main solution that Einstein parents should be advocating for.

I frankly think it's a pretty offensive and tone deaf ask to make for that to be the focus of advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Seeing as the vast majority of students will never take MVC, um no

So, then why have it at any school? We should equalize all the schools and cut out everything that isn't offered at all schools. Why should your kids get access to advanced classes and others should not? Our tax dollars fund your schools.

Look I'm not against having MVC at Einstein. I'm for investing more resources to have more classes at Einstein. However, the notion that adding MVC to Einstein is a way to "balance all needs" is preposterous. The overall academic outcomes at Einstein are awful. Only 30% of students are proficient in math! MVC is not the answer to that problem.

Are you paying attention or just arguing to argue? With the DCC, you can apply to magnets and lottery into other schools. The bulk of the smarter kids who don't care about the arts go to Blair or Wheaton, hence why you have lower scores, as those kids are not there to balance the test scores. If they don't have the course offerings, families will not choose Einstein, especially if there is no arts program and will either try to cosa, move or go private. If you don't offer it to those 30%, then there is no way to increase scores and improve how the students perform.

Fixing Einstein means looking at what's going on at the ES and MS levels and strengthening them to get these kids reading, writing, and on grade level math at each grade, and especially when they leave ES, then MS. Many HS kids went through multiple bad curriculum that did not teach the foundation, and they fell through the cracks. Einstein cannot fix this as these kids missed out on many years of remediation and education. The kids doing well are either very bright or have parents who supplemented or got tutors to fill in the gaps.

How old are your kids? This idea that every child in the DCC now has access to MVC if they want it is simply not true. My kid and many others were not able to lottery into schools that offered MVC. Ultimately very few kids are going to take MVC at Einstein. Will they be able to get a quality teacher? What if the teacher leaves mid-year and you get stuck with a sub? Better to send your Einstein kid to take MVC at MC for DE credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is some but the problem is most of the PTA families kids will graduate and this not impact them.

Also, many of the DCC PTAs are not as well staffed, engaged and organized as their Walter Johnson, Whitman and B-CC counterparts.

What do you mean? Northwood and Blair are getting what they want, aren’t they? Brand new school, keep the elite programs, not overcrowded.

Einstein is the one who needs to speak up. The continued focus on adding ToK to Einstein has caused your community to lose sight of anything else.