Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Hi all - I am the OP of this DCUM thread/conversation and one of the primary authors of the "One Step at at Time: Fair Boundaries Now, Regional Programs Later petition" found at: https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries.

First, thank you all for engaging with this topic. I hear loud and clear the concern that the petition appears to focus on the DCC and families who value choice, and that it may seem to sideline the goal of improving all schools in the county. I want to clarify a few things about my perspective and the petition’s purpose:

1. My role and perspective
I am a B-CC parent, and authored this with feedback from both B-CC and DCC parents. We are unfamiliar with the Crown Boundary Study, and priorities of that community, so the focus is on the impact of the Woodward Boundary Study. However, we fully support the idea that every kid in our county deserves a strong, well-resourced school. This petition is not about preserving choice just for one group, it’s about ensuring a process that allows equitable, well-planned change that benefits all students.

2. What the petition is and is not
The core requests are to separate the boundary studies from the academic regional programs model rollout, and to take time to develop boundaries and assignments that truly reflect the goals of crowding relief, equitable access, and stable transitions. These asks are in direct alignment with the 90% of MCCPTA delegates, representing more than 50 MCPS PTAs, requesting the same delay.

We hope to avoid prematurely locking in regional program boundaries that restrict meaningful boundary adjustments, to ensure the process is transparent, data-driven, and inclusive of historically underserved communities.

The brief mention of the DCC in the section on “concerns” reflects that, in this study area, the proposed changes hit DCC schools disproportionately, but the petition isn’t advocating to “keep DCC as is.” It is advocating delay on the regional program model so the boundary portion can fully serve its original purpose.

3. Why this matters for all schools
When the boundaries are constrained by a regional programs model that hasn’t been fully developed, the risk is that some schools and communities continue to benefit from choice while others continue to bear the brunt of overcrowding, high-needs populations, and articulation disruptions.

Change is hard. None of us signed up to be part of a boundary study. We worry about our kids, their teachers, their classmates, our buses, our homes. The petition acknowledges that discomfort. It’s not saying “no change ever”, it’s saying: let’s change thoughtfully.

If you feel the petition needs to better reflect the priorities of other clusters, or if certain language feels misaligned with your own feedback, you are welcome to copy any parts of it to share with MCPS and the BOE separately.

My hope is we can turn this into something constructive that honors both the urgency of the issues (crowding, equity, transitions) and the complexity of doing this well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yes they should spend ALL the money they get from the state for each FARMS kid on specific services for FARMS kids. They do not currently do that.

I thought they did, but just focused it at elementary schools (where arguably it will do the most good per dollar). Where do you see that MCPS doesn't not utilized all FARMS funding received?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi all - I am the OP of this DCUM thread/conversation and one of the primary authors of the "One Step at at Time: Fair Boundaries Now, Regional Programs Later petition" found at: https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries.

First, thank you all for engaging with this topic. I hear loud and clear the concern that the petition appears to focus on the DCC and families who value choice, and that it may seem to sideline the goal of improving all schools in the county. I want to clarify a few things about my perspective and the petition’s purpose:

1. My role and perspective
I am a B-CC parent, and authored this with feedback from both B-CC and DCC parents. We are unfamiliar with the Crown Boundary Study, and priorities of that community, so the focus is on the impact of the Woodward Boundary Study. However, we fully support the idea that every kid in our county deserves a strong, well-resourced school. This petition is not about preserving choice just for one group, it’s about ensuring a process that allows equitable, well-planned change that benefits all students.

2. What the petition is and is not
The core requests are to separate the boundary studies from the academic regional programs model rollout, and to take time to develop boundaries and assignments that truly reflect the goals of crowding relief, equitable access, and stable transitions. These asks are in direct alignment with the 90% of MCCPTA delegates, representing more than 50 MCPS PTAs, requesting the same delay.

We hope to avoid prematurely locking in regional program boundaries that restrict meaningful boundary adjustments, to ensure the process is transparent, data-driven, and inclusive of historically underserved communities.

The brief mention of the DCC in the section on “concerns” reflects that, in this study area, the proposed changes hit DCC schools disproportionately, but the petition isn’t advocating to “keep DCC as is.” It is advocating delay on the regional program model so the boundary portion can fully serve its original purpose.

3. Why this matters for all schools
When the boundaries are constrained by a regional programs model that hasn’t been fully developed, the risk is that some schools and communities continue to benefit from choice while others continue to bear the brunt of overcrowding, high-needs populations, and articulation disruptions.

Change is hard. None of us signed up to be part of a boundary study. We worry about our kids, their teachers, their classmates, our buses, our homes. The petition acknowledges that discomfort. It’s not saying “no change ever”, it’s saying: let’s change thoughtfully.

If you feel the petition needs to better reflect the priorities of other clusters, or if certain language feels misaligned with your own feedback, you are welcome to copy any parts of it to share with MCPS and the BOE separately.

My hope is we can turn this into something constructive that honors both the urgency of the issues (crowding, equity, transitions) and the complexity of doing this well.

will you be ok with being rezone to Blair?

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain how the regional program model restricts meaningful boundary adjustments? I'm not sure I'm following that line of argument. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how the regional program model restricts meaningful boundary adjustments? I'm not sure I'm following that line of argument. Thanks.

I think (grain of salt there) that the regional program relies on treating all regions the same, which means ending the consortia. The consortia lead to much larger school-to-school commutes than the regions would, such that they lead to measurable impacts on utilization. So the consortia are really the sticking point here. I think it's a path forward to say "hey we are ending the consortia, period, and adopting new boundaries. We can wait a year to figure out the regional programs." But the issue is more that the consortia and the regional model is tied bc the consortia people are mad that something is being taken away and nothing else is being provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

[Anonymous]

The consortia need to end for accurate utilization rates. The consortia people don't feel like they are getting a good replacement for the end of their school choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The consortia need to end for accurate utilization rates. The consortia people don't feel like they are getting a good replacement for the end of their school choice.

Huh? MCPS knows the address of every student and what school they are zoned for. They don't need to end the consortia to know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

But I am agreeing with you that 1) we shouldn't have magnet programs, and 2) the magnet programs should be in low-income schools ("I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school"). We disagree, apparently, on what the magnets do. I don't think they offer much to these low-income schools. You, apparently, do. I don't think they offer much because they only serve a tiny sliver of kids at those low-income schools, and probably mask bigger issues with those schools.

[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: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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

But I am agreeing with you that 1) we shouldn't have magnet programs, and 2) the magnet programs should be in low-income schools ("I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school"). We disagree, apparently, on what the magnets do. I don't think they offer much to these low-income schools. You, apparently, do. I don't think they offer much because they only serve a tiny sliver of kids at those low-income schools, and probably mask bigger issues with those schools.

How many times do I need to say that I don't think there should be any magnets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The consortia need to end for accurate utilization rates. The consortia people don't feel like they are getting a good replacement for the end of their school choice.

Huh? MCPS knows the address of every student and what school they are zoned for. They don't need to end the consortia to know that.

Ok, to rephrase: to accurately utilize schools, not just count the kids in schools.

[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: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.

I am the PP you are responding to, and I totally agree with you. But the narrative that these programs only benefit wealthy kids is incorrect. And their regional program model will just reproduce the segregation across the county and make it worse by including the wealthiest schools as a "choice" that kids can lottery into.

I am supportive of ending the consortia and the regional programs.

The programs maybe don't 'only' benefit wealthy kids, but certainly they lean toward benefiting kids with more resources in terms of parental transportation, parental job flexibility, multiple parents, etc. And that's just because of the travel.

Yes it sounds like we agree. The programs are open to all kids that are interested including those at the home schools, and transportation from kids' neighborhoods is provided (unlike the regional program model) but yes, it is not an especially equitable model. The regional program proposal is especially INEQUITABLE.

What would it take to get people who have had school choice to accept an end to it, except for "you will have every imaginable class and service that you desire"? In the context of a budget set at a school level (per number of kids, with some extra funding for special needs and ELL), what is the best way to allocate that money?

Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Barring that, I think they should put criteria based academic magnet programs at schools that need them to sustain advanced academic classes, not at schools that already have advanced academic classes for their own students and gain nothing from having a magnet program at their school.

I am concerned that criteria-based magnet schools don't lead to measurable improvements for even a good portion of kids at the school. Certainly it doesn't seem like Blair SMCS has done this. I would love to see data to the contrary, but aside from those ~30 kids at Blair that get into the magnet, I don't see the good it is doing school-wide, even for the 'above average but not magnet level' kids. Certainly the school seems to brag about the program quite a bit (and it sounds like an amazing program), but I wonder if the focus on the magnets just masks the issues with the non-magnet kids.

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. If they are going to have magnets, they should place them in schools that do not otherwise have enough interest to hold advanced classes. Not at high income schools, which will increase segregation. However, as you imply, this is irrelevant to the students that need the most support. As I said above, Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.

You are responding to me, and I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school. I honestly don't see the issue with that, other than I don't actually think it will help the school overall. But if that's what makes people feel they got something, then so be it.

You're being a little condescending, I am going to try to spell this out in more simple terms:

1. There should be no magnet programs
2. If they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.

But I am agreeing with you that 1) we shouldn't have magnet programs, and 2) the magnet programs should be in low-income schools ("I am fine with placing the magnets in higher-FARMS school"). We disagree, apparently, on what the magnets do. I don't think they offer much to these low-income schools. You, apparently, do. I don't think they offer much because they only serve a tiny sliver of kids at those low-income schools, and probably mask bigger issues with those schools.

How many times do I need to say that I don't think there should be any magnets?

? you say we shouldn't have magnets but then say "but if we do they should be in these low income schools." I don't know why you think I'm not hearing what you are saying, when I am repeating it back to you.