Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Transportation is a huge issue but so is number of open seats at each school. They cannot fix the course offerings with the current admin so that a good but moot point. There are some admin who don’t believe or want ap classes and treat the so students very differently if you reach out with a concern. What will happen is more families will move or go private. Our plan is private if this happens.

So make them come out and say it. Publish the data for every school. Which courses are being offered and how many students are taking them.

You can look at any schools course offerings and see what is offered that year. It’s no secret. It’s pretty well known for that administrator. Nothing you can do but find a solution on your own. Forget asking them for help and the guidance counselors need their approval or they cannot help either.

Publish it in one place with enrollment numbers for each course. The enrollment is important.

Sorry, MCPS does not believe in accountability, transparency and all those things taxpayers deserve.

Anonymous wrote:Also how many students are taking classes outside of the school they are enrolled in - whether it be MC or another MCPS school and which school it is

Good question. Transparency is not MCPS's or the BOE's strong suit. And, what is the cost, and would students prefer to have it at their home schools? Some kids cannot do either, as the HS schedules don't align, and transportation issues. MCPS doesn't provide transportation to other schools. They could also have teachers do split days for specific classes and pay mileage or a bonus for their trouble.

Also how many students are taking classes outside of the school they are enrolled in - whether it be MC or another MCPS school and which school it is

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Transportation is a huge issue but so is number of open seats at each school. They cannot fix the course offerings with the current admin so that a good but moot point. There are some admin who don’t believe or want ap classes and treat the so students very differently if you reach out with a concern. What will happen is more families will move or go private. Our plan is private if this happens.

So make them come out and say it. Publish the data for every school. Which courses are being offered and how many students are taking them.

You can look at any schools course offerings and see what is offered that year. It’s no secret. It’s pretty well known for that administrator. Nothing you can do but find a solution on your own. Forget asking them for help and the guidance counselors need their approval or they cannot help either.

Publish it in one place with enrollment numbers for each course. The enrollment is important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Or demanding setting criteria-based programs in Kennedy and Einstein? Is this a more realistic request?

They are proposing the criteria based visual arts program for Einstein. Some folks want the performing arts criteria based program at Einstein too. Others have said Humanities. To me that doesn't matter as much as just having a guarantee of in person course availability that allows everyone to complete graduation requirements. MCPS's mention of distance learning to fill gaps is worrying to me because I think many wealthier families will flee public if they see that high level math or science has to be virtual at their school.

Without the academics you will only get a select group of students. Many of the vac students also do music and theater and the kids intermix in all the activities and classes. Many of us spend a fortune on activities due to the lack of offerings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Transportation is a huge issue but so is number of open seats at each school. They cannot fix the course offerings with the current admin so that a good but moot point. There are some admin who don’t believe or want ap classes and treat the so students very differently if you reach out with a concern. What will happen is more families will move or go private. Our plan is private if this happens.

So make them come out and say it. Publish the data for every school. Which courses are being offered and how many students are taking them.

You can look at any schools course offerings and see what is offered that year. It’s no secret. It’s pretty well known for that administrator. Nothing you can do but find a solution on your own. Forget asking them for help and the guidance counselors need their approval or they cannot help either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Transportation is a huge issue but so is number of open seats at each school. They cannot fix the course offerings with the current admin so that a good but moot point. There are some admin who don’t believe or want ap classes and treat the so students very differently if you reach out with a concern. What will happen is more families will move or go private. Our plan is private if this happens.

So make them come out and say it. Publish the data for every school. Which courses are being offered and how many students are taking them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Or demanding setting criteria-based programs in Kennedy and Einstein? Is this a more realistic request?

They are proposing the criteria based visual arts program for Einstein. Some folks want the performing arts criteria based program at Einstein too. Others have said Humanities. To me that doesn't matter as much as just having a guarantee of in person course availability that allows everyone to complete graduation requirements. MCPS's mention of distance learning to fill gaps is worrying to me because I think many wealthier families will flee public if they see that high level math or science has to be virtual at their school.

What does distance learning mean? They have never clarified that and they took away the virtual school claiming they could not find the few million in the budget to keep it. The blp program is a joke and pathways to graduation has minimum course offerings and is not academically strong nor advanced classes. The other issue is that none of their high school schedules are aligned so if classes are after school that leads to further inequities as kids cannot do sports, clubs or other interests.

I have a child who does not have enough class offerings in math to graduate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Transportation is a huge issue but so is number of open seats at each school. They cannot fix the course offerings with the current admin so that a good but moot point. There are some admin who don’t believe or want ap classes and treat the so students very differently if you reach out with a concern. What will happen is more families will move or go private. Our plan is private if this happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Or demanding setting criteria-based programs in Kennedy and Einstein? Is this a more realistic request?

They are proposing the criteria based visual arts program for Einstein. Some folks want the performing arts criteria based program at Einstein too. Others have said Humanities. To me that doesn't matter as much as just having a guarantee of in person course availability that allows everyone to complete graduation requirements. MCPS's mention of distance learning to fill gaps is worrying to me because I think many wealthier families will flee public if they see that high level math or science has to be virtual at their school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Or demanding setting criteria-based programs in Kennedy and Einstein? Is this a more realistic request?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

DP
While I think there are good reasons to oppose the regional model, I think we need to read the room. There are numerous equity concerns wrt the DCC which mainly benefits wealthier DCC kids that are willing to travel. It has been detrimental to Kennedy for example and to Einstein to a lesser extent. Demanding to keep the DCC is not going to be successful. I think focusing on inequality in course offerings is a better strategy. Demand they publish lists of courses offered and students enrolled in them by school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how is the DCC uniquely screwed by the new boundary options? The OP never said. The focus is solely on the end of the lotterying to other schools.

There is nothing here which screw DCC specifically. Lotterying to other schools in large number shouldn;t exist anyway. It helps kids winning the lotery but harms kids who are left behind when schools become unequal. Everyone attending home school will help with keeping motivated kids in home school and stronger course offerings.

They will not give stronger course offerings, especially with the reduction in staffing. The schools are not equal or close by any means. You are forced to MC if you can make it work,go without or cosa. At least with the dcc you could try.

ToK can easily go to Woodward
Wheaton ES can easily go to WJ

Both will ba taking a bus ride and not walking to these schools. Bus ride will hardly change for both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ. Move some Kensington kids from WJ into Einstein (if that makes Einstein too overcrowded, make small tweaks like maybe keeping the Flora Singer kids together and sending them to Northwood.) Move some kids from Kennedy into Wheaton to address overcrowding if needed. Done.

What do folks think of this?

ToK are good at screaming and MCPS listens to rich whiners so this is not going to happen.

Let the tok go to Woodward.

Woodward has double the FARMS rate than WJ. ToK wants to attend lower FARMS schools and that's WJ. Woodward and WJ are not simialr options for ToK.