Reply to Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

There are academically advanced kids zoned for every MCPS school. But schools restrict course availability in many schools, reducing opportunities for those students. [b]If[/b] 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, [b]Speaking for myself, I would prefer zero school choice. [/b] Meaning, no magnets. Everyone goes to their home school.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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. I[b]f they do have magnet programs, they should NOT place them in high income schools, because that will increase segregation.[/b]
3. Therefore, if they do have magnet programs, they should place them in low income schools.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

How many times do I need to say that[b] I don't think there should be any magnets?[/b][/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/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