Reply to All the boundary options are bad for the DCC-- how do we organize against that? (Any ideas for alternative options?)

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "All the boundary options are bad for the DCC-- how do we organize against that? (Any ideas for alternative options?) "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s all innuendo and rumor.  This board is pretty baseless frequently.[/quote]

You don't need DCUM to look at the second round options and see quite clearly who is being catered to and who is being screwed over.[/quote]

The dcc seems far far more upset about the regional programs than the boundaries.[/quote]

Quoting the OP:
[quote]Looking at the boundary options, it's pretty clear that all 4 of them benefit BCC, WJ, and Whitman at the expense of DCC schools. Their boundaries barely change (except WJ which gets Woodward as basically a WJ overflow school) whereas DCC boundaries change a lot. They have almost no split articulation (just Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood) while DCC schools have tons. Some DCC schools will remain overcrowded in some of these options, but their schools will not. It seems like they basically decided to give those schools everything they want and then let DCC families argue amongst ourselves for or against certain options that benefit some DCC neighborhoods and schools more than others.[/quote][/quote]

but also look at the 16 threads about the regional programming.  or even a lot of this thread.  this is not a nefarious statement.  it is trying to say that perhaps the problems with the dcc could be helped through changing (or not adopting) the regional programming model, rather than the boundary issues.

on the boundary issues, though, it seems like option D is best for getting utilization normalized.[/quote]

Oh so it's fine with you if only the boundary changes screw over the DCC and the regional changes just don't make things THAT much worse? What a generous kind person you are s/ As it is kids have to lottery in to other schools to access the same programs that Whitman and BCC have at their home schools. Now they are proposing limiting our kids' access even more. On top of getting the short end of the stick on utilization, demographics and split articulation wrt the boundary study. [/quote]

eye roll.  yeah so trying to discern what the people in the DCC would like under the set of proposed options is actually trying to understand what could make the problem BETTER.  i agree that a certain set of courses should be offered at all schools, and i support making all neighborhood schools better.  but that doesn't seem to be in the specific set of possibilities right now.[/quote]

Well people in the DCc have different ideas for how to make it better which have been discussed in this and other threads. Stop pretending it hasn't. We aren't a monolith, we are a very diverse community with lots of different strengths and needs. MCPS has chosen to outsource any actual community engagement or analysis to PTAs, which surprise surprise results in super inequitable "solutions".

What could make the problem better? To realize it's 2025 and MCPS needs to do a LOT better on community engagement and do some actual analysis.[/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