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]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[b] many many people[/b]. 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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

MCPS has already announced that it is rejecting the October options and is proposing a new set of options in November.[/quote]

+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. [/quote]

No, Jeannie Franklin is on the regional program project, not the boundary studies.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

You are completely correct. I have the wrong name. I apologize. Will try to get the correct name.[/quote]

Cat Malchodi is the boundary study staffer who spoke at Kennedy.[/quote]

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?[/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