Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The phrase "accurately utilize" is nonsensical

[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?

There should be magnets in the low income schools that lack k course offerings. The high income schools have a huge course offering so it’s not needed.

Th new magnets are fake.

[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.

If you are at Blair you can take the advanced classes without being in the magnet. The issue is for kids who don’t get in or cannot go and their home school does not have what they need to even graduate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The phrase "accurately utilize" is nonsensical

how about "utilize according to the students that are zoned for the school".

If a school is underutilized because a lot of kids are lotterying out of it (kennedy), then that space could be utilized if the kids could no longer lottery out in the same large numbers. Ofc parents are pissed that that might be taken away. But for purposes of assessing utilization, I can see the rational to not building more space at the school where the kids are lotterying to (Blair, maybe), and just having those kids back at 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.

If you are at Blair you can take the advanced classes without being in the magnet. The issue is for kids who don’t get in or cannot go and their home school does not have what they need to even graduate

how many kids can/do take the magnet classes, that are not in the magnets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

There should be magnets in the low income schools that lack k course offerings. The high income schools have a huge course offering so it’s not needed.

Th new magnets are fake.

people really need to start defining what they mean when they say 'magnet'. You want a 'magnet' to have more course offerings but the magnet is 'fake'. So are the new course offerings 'fake'? What are you talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

ah, I now see what you are saying. I don't really know. Is that what MCPS is saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

ah, I now see what you are saying. I don't really know. Is that what MCPS is saying?

The OP is saying "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." I'm looking for more information on how they are being prematurely locked in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

ah, I now see what you are saying. I don't really know. Is that what MCPS is saying?

The OP is saying "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." I'm looking for more information on how they are being prematurely locked in.

Because they are making the regional boundaries hard dividing lines, allowing no cross-region split articulation to MS or HS. All elementary and middle schools must be assigned as either a region 1 school or a region 3 school, with no room for flexibility (and similar elsewhere in the county.).

This is part of why Kennedy and Wheaton end up overutilized, why there is like 6 times as much split articulation in the current DCC schools as the western schools, etc ..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The phrase "accurately utilize" is nonsensical

how about "utilize according to the students that are zoned for the school".

If a school is underutilized because a lot of kids are lotterying out of it (kennedy), then that space could be utilized if the kids could no longer lottery out in the same large numbers. Ofc parents are pissed that that might be taken away. But for purposes of assessing utilization, I can see the rational to not building more space at the school where the kids are lotterying to (Blair, maybe), and just having those kids back at their home school.

Kennedy does not have a lot of class offerings, less than even the schools people complain don't have enough so the only option is to move, cosa or lottery to get your child's academic needs met. Wouldn't you be pissed if your kids didn't have the same opportunities as other students in MCPS while paying your property taxes that go toward classes for other kids and not yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cat Malchodi is the boundary study staffer who spoke at Kennedy.

Okay. And she said she was creating two or more new boundary options for the Woodward area study, and those would be choices alongside the current 4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There should be magnets in the low income schools that lack k course offerings. The high income schools have a huge course offering so it’s not needed.

Th new magnets are fake.

people really need to start defining what they mean when they say 'magnet'. You want a 'magnet' to have more course offerings but the magnet is 'fake'. So are the new course offerings 'fake'? What are you talking about.

How are they going to provide the course offerings at some of these schools? Some schools already have limited offerings, and the justification is funding and staffing. If they reduce capacity and student numbers go down, staffing and funding will be reduced, so what will be cut to offer these programs, when the schools are already bare bones as it is? They are not true magnets. They are magnets in name only.

Einstein and Northwood fighting over programs is silly, as they can get the magnet title, but there will not be additional staffing to accommodate higher-level classes to be a true magnet.

[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: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.

Cat Malchodi is the boundary study staffer who spoke at Kennedy.

Okay. And she said she was creating two or more new boundary options for the Woodward area study, and those would be choices alongside the current 4?

Correct. The Kennedy meeting happened 30 minutes after the BOE approved the superintendent's request to make more options to reflect the CIP proposal to make Crown a holding school and to close SSIMS. So, at the Kennedy meeting Cat Malchodi said that this new news, but that she'd likely be making at least two, if not a few, more options. She said she didn't know yet if they'd put out a new survey or add options to the current survey. But, that there will be more options based on feedback and based on the CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, but I still don't see how the regional lines are restricting boundary adjustments. The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly.

ah, I now see what you are saying. I don't really know. Is that what MCPS is saying?

The OP is saying "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." I'm looking for more information on how they are being prematurely locked in.

This is why all of this doesn't make any sense. Originally, they were working on boundaries. Then, all of a sudden they drew the finalized regional maps. I've asked the same question -- why can't they finish the boundaries, then make the regions based on the boundaries. But no, for some reason, they made the regions, and now claim that they cannot adjust boundaries because the regional boundaries are decided.

PP wrote" "The regional map they've been sharing is based on the current boundaries, yes, but once the new boundaries are approved, the regional map will change accordingly." They have consistently said that the regions are decided and then boundaries must fit within them. So then, that limits the boundaries!