Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 17:02     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries




The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.


I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.


I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.


You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.


My point is that you are conflating the boundary study and academic program study while saying you want MCPS to separate the two. I agree that all schools should have the same offerings, in which case it shouldn't matter if Whitman and B-CC borders don't change. Focus on that and you'd have a lot more signatures for the petition. BTW, the person who started this petition and has been all over local media lives in the DCC but has her kids in the B-CC cluster through the elementary school Spanish immersion program. I'm not the one using the lottery to get my kids out of the DCC!
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 17:01     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.


DP here. I didn't get your logic. Your concern is regarding boundary options, but the petition is about slowing down the regional program roll-out, yes?


She doesn't want to sign anything that questions the second round boundary options. She likes them because they will maximize her property value. She cares more about her property value than about education, though she will never admit it.



Honestly I get it. I agree with everything in the petition and signed it, but I also understand that some people who agree on "delay the program changes" will disagree on the other items-- when we are calling for things to be more fair, a lot of the folks who are advantaged in the current options are not going to support changing them (some will because it's the right thing to do, which is great, but realistically a lot of them will not )

I do think there is very broad consensus across the county that the regional changes should not be passed in their current form at this speed without community input. I wish there was another more general petition just about delaying the boundary changes that could also be circulated so we could get the highest numbers possible on that petition (but no, before you ask, I'm not going to create one.)
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 16:55     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.


DP here. I didn't get your logic. Your concern is regarding boundary options, but the petition is about slowing down the regional program roll-out, yes?


She doesn't want to sign anything that questions the second round boundary options. She likes them because they will maximize her property value. She cares more about her property value than about education, though she will never admit it.

Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 16:34     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.


DP here. I didn't get your logic. Your concern is regarding boundary options, but the petition is about slowing down the regional program roll-out, yes?
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 16:16     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
DP and this is the part I have a problem with:

“The inequitable distribution of disruption between the East and West portions of the Woodward study area, with the bulk of boundary changes, articulation changes, and program reallocation affecting DCC schools.”

I do not believe the boundary study should equitably affect all schools just to spread the misery and disruption “equally.” I think it is unfortunate that some communities will be more affected than others, but unfortunately there are some schools closer/more adjacent to Woodward and other schools that need to relieve overcrowding. As a result, those schools are likely to be more impacted. Some of those schools in those categories happen to be in the DCC. But it’s not reasonable to demand Whitman and other schools also be shuffled around so everyone suffers. I think the design team tried to minimize disruption for as many students/communities as possible in the second round and I don’t like this east vs. west line of thinking. That’s why I won’t sign.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 16:09     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


You could read this thread to find your answers. It’s been discussed.

No one actually has “beef” with the DCC.


I saw zero direct quotes. Mostly people seem to just hate seeing the term "DCC" so the fact it is mentioned in the petition I guess makes it a no-go for you.


Can’t help you then.


Of course you can, you can explain what part of the petition you don't like. Since you are unwilling to do so I can I only assume you are just trying to stymie the petition for your own reasons, not because there is anything wrong with the petition.


Discussed earlier in the thread. You won’t read the thread. No sense repeating it.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 16:07     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.


I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.


They don't understand the disparities between BCC and the other DCC and upper county schools that don't have the same offerings. They hear it/read it but until your children are in that situation it's pretty easy to ignore it and say its not a big deal. Forcing kids to their home schools without the offerings or means is unfair. Forcing kids to BCC, or a W school isn't the same as those schools have a much more diverse and substancial offering.

I don't get the issue with split articulation but none of the boundaries make sense but the locations of the DCC schools don't really fit for downcounty near DC. They should have added a school there.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 16:05     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.


I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.


I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.


You aren't in the DCC and assuming you are at BCC, which has the course offerings your kids need. Forcing kids in the DCC to their home schools, which do not have the classes they need, is inequitable. If your kids went to a DCC school, you would be using the lottery to move your kids to a school that had what they needed. Let's be real. Instead, you moved.

Split articulation is really bizzare to me but its not a big deal as friend groups change in MS and HS.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 15:55     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.


I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.


I do like the second round of options because it doesn't split Silver Creek MS. My kids are at RHPS, which splits into CCES and NCC in 3rd grade. Pretty much all of the first set of options then further split CCES and NCC for middle school, so my kids would have two split articulations by the time they are in 6th grade. I'm glad the second round of options doesn't do that and I don't think that has anything to do with the academic programs study.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 15:08     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.


I honestly can't follow this. It sounds like you have a bizarre grudge about the DCC's reaction to the boundary study and its timing. Just be straight with us - you like the second round options and won't sign a petition that questions them.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 15:05     Subject: Re:Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
MCEA has now come out against the regional program proposal too: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 15:00     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


I'm not the PP you're responding to, but my issue with the petition is that it asks MCPS to separate the boundary studies from the academic program analysis, but then the feedback/concerns on current proposals conflates the two. There was no petition after the first round of boundary options, even though Whitman and the wealthier side of B-CC (Westland MS) were also largely untouched. If the issue is with the program analysis, focus on that! I'm all for scrapping that altogether. I think school choice (incl. DCC) is inequitable in that it tends to pull the families with the most resources away from their neighborhood schools.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 14:58     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


You could read this thread to find your answers. It’s been discussed.

No one actually has “beef” with the DCC.


I saw zero direct quotes. Mostly people seem to just hate seeing the term "DCC" so the fact it is mentioned in the petition I guess makes it a no-go for you.


Can’t help you then.


Of course you can, you can explain what part of the petition you don't like. Since you are unwilling to do so I can I only assume you are just trying to stymie the petition for your own reasons, not because there is anything wrong with the petition.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 14:57     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


No, we are apart of the DCC. Why do you assume someone is against the DCC if they don't sign it? I don't agree with all the parts and its been discussed here so I'm not signing it. I support the DCC continuing and strengthened vs. the regional model.


I hear that you are unwilling to specify which parts of the petition you disagree with. Why is that?
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2025 14:56     Subject: Sign Petition Asking for Boundaries Now, Programs Later
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I am an MCPS teacher and want to highlight here that MCEA just put out a press release opposing MCPS Region Model.

MCEA is concerned that the region model is proceeding too quickly and is not informed by sufficient stakeholder input. More information here: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/11/06/mcea-opposes-mcps-region-model/

For those still on the fence about signing the petition to MCPS requesting that they delay the regional program model rollout, and instead focus on the boundaries please consider signing the petition in support of your teachers.

The petition mentions DCC, but the primary ask (pause regional rollout) is important for our entire county.

https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries


The dcc petition is not written in a way that everyone will support it.


Which quotes from the petition do you find off-putting? If you can't give us specific quotes I think we can assume you just have a beef with the DCC.


You could read this thread to find your answers. It’s been discussed.

No one actually has “beef” with the DCC.


I saw zero direct quotes. Mostly people seem to just hate seeing the term "DCC" so the fact it is mentioned in the petition I guess makes it a no-go for you.


Can’t help you then.