Reply to Upcoming in-person boundary study & regional model "engagement session": how to engage?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Upcoming in-person boundary study & regional model "engagement session": how to engage?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not).  There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people.  That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.[/quote]

I was also in the feedback room.  A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback."  When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

[B]Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman).  Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc.  Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.[/b]

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools.  She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.[/quote]

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade.  She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.[/quote]
Wow. This HAS to be discussed publicly. Unbelievable. Which of our elected officials is going to do some basic due diligence before rubber stamping this offensive proposal?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics