The advocating for Einstein should solely focus on MVC. This makes the most sense and should balance all needs.

Anonymous wrote:MVC, Physics C etc should be in every high school.

No. Unnecessary
Cal BC, yes.

MVC, Physics C etc should be in every high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

I live in Bethesda and did not respond because my last kid will soon be out of MCPS. But in all my years of volunteering, and attending the general County-wide assemblies of school PTAs, I've noticed that parents are so much better organized in well-to-do districts. I think it's because those groups have more people who know how the world works, and which leverage has a chance to work. They know how to organize people, how to communicate, etc.

+1. It’s some nefarious under the table money or influence campaign. It’s up front organizing by each of the local PTAs with planned talking points and active parents who go to these meetings and respond to the surveys. It’s really no different than the level of parental engagement you see in each of the PTA committees and involvement in activities at these schools. Do I think that made a difference? Absolutely. It’s why you can’t just through money at Title I schools and expect the same results. It requires dedicated commitment from the community year in, year out. That’s somewhat coming from a place of privilege and frankly I don’t care. That’s why folks moved to these places in the first place. MCPS decided that social re-engineering was not viable and decided to focus on the areas immediately impacted by the school, as they should have. You had your chance to voice concerns this spring. It’s a bit late now to try to get organized when others have been doing this for years. And for FWIW, I would gladly pushback again against any changes from the current options and know our PTAs would as well.

So basically MCPS is outsourcing analysis and decision making to local PTAs to make decisions instead of doing rigorous analysis itself that doesn't prioritize some communities over others. That's an abdication of their responsibility and is gross. Communities should need attorneys to advocate for taxpayer funded resources.

Should say "shouldn't need"

And it's so sad PP isn't bothered at all

It's basically this idea that inequities occur because White people are superior to Black people. That's racism. Nope, it's because the system is stacked in favor of one group and against another group.

We all care about our kids but it's clear MCPS has had a certain agenda all along. These new options are a total about face from the initial options so saying "it's too late now to advocate" speaks to the nature of this process and who it was intended to benefit all along.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

What issues do you see as common for the "DCC Community" to advocate around in regards to the boundary study and program analysis? The reality is the DCC is large with a lot of economic diversity. My home is in-bounds for Einstein. I've had kids at Blair and Einstein and of course know families with kids at other DCC schools. These are middle class and upper middle class families (the most likely to know about these issues and to advocate), and I'm not sure there would be a lot of agreement amongst them about what we should be advocating for in terms of the DCC community.

DP - not getting rid of the DCC, for one? I don’t know any parents here who want that. And if they insist on getting rid of it, DCC high schools should *all* have advanced academic options for kids.

Those seem like pretty universal issues.

The entire plan is that all high schools should have advanced academic options for kids! Or are you the poster who defines "advanced academic options" to mean solely offering MVC?

DP but I for one would rather have the advanced classes offered at all schools rather than go through the DCC choice process and potentially end up at a school that doesn't have them. Maybe that's where some of the advocacy should focus- e.g., I think there is concern that by Einstein getting smaller, there wouldn't be enough students interested in certain advanced classes to offer them. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to enforce the same minimum at each school when the total number of students differs that much? Just a thought.

The point is that MCPS has been clear that every school will offer at least AP Calculus BC. I don't think it is unrealistic to say "If your kid wants to go beyond AP Calculus BC, please consider one of these magnet programs."

The same goes for a kid who wants to take three dance periods a day. That kid should apply to a performing arts magnet.

It's FINE for schools to specialize, actually.

Every school, or almost every school, offers calc BC, so arguing about this is silly. Not all kids can get into the magnet as there aren't enough spots and even then, transportation can be a problem. MCPS puts kids on a track to take BC in 10th, which leaves two more years of required math. They can take Stat's, but that's not a great plan for Stem kids to take it alone (combined is ok). So, they should at a minimum offer MVC to all students. Even if they have to have teachers do split days at different close by schools and pay their mileage.

And, if your arguement is it isn't needed, MCPS should stop all higher level math after Calc BC for equity.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

I live in Bethesda and did not respond because my last kid will soon be out of MCPS. But in all my years of volunteering, and attending the general County-wide assemblies of school PTAs, I've noticed that parents are so much better organized in well-to-do districts. I think it's because those groups have more people who know how the world works, and which leverage has a chance to work. They know how to organize people, how to communicate, etc.

+1. It’s some nefarious under the table money or influence campaign. It’s up front organizing by each of the local PTAs with planned talking points and active parents who go to these meetings and respond to the surveys. It’s really no different than the level of parental engagement you see in each of the PTA committees and involvement in activities at these schools. Do I think that made a difference? Absolutely. It’s why you can’t just through money at Title I schools and expect the same results. It requires dedicated commitment from the community year in, year out. That’s somewhat coming from a place of privilege and frankly I don’t care. That’s why folks moved to these places in the first place. MCPS decided that social re-engineering was not viable and decided to focus on the areas immediately impacted by the school, as they should have. You had your chance to voice concerns this spring. It’s a bit late now to try to get organized when others have been doing this for years. And for FWIW, I would gladly pushback again against any changes from the current options and know our PTAs would as well.

In reality, the boundaries matter as in HS kids go back and forth, and there is no transportation before school and very limited (pretty much useless) activity bus so kids have to get rides with parents, drive, or take the bus or carpool. So, it's a big deal to be far away from your school.

Which groupings and arguing is silly, as reality is there will maybe be 30-50 slots at each school for outside students, so the bigger issue is the lack of resources/courses at all schools, and if MCPS cares about equity, then provide the same opportunities, teachers per class, etc., at each school. Provide more funding for ESOL/Farms/SPED high schools so they can offer appropriate classes to those students without sacrificing the education of other students.

Are DCC kids going to go to Whitman? Probably not, and the ones you think would choose it probably wouldn't, especially the parents, as that's not the environment we'd want our kids in, and the distance is a huge issue. If we wanted Whitman, we'd move there.

This is more separate but not equal.

The only option for families is to move, COSA or private. It will destroy some areas.

We all knew the boundaries would be redefined. We didn't know that key programs would be taken away and the numbers reduced so we'd lose staffing which will then cut even more classes (although it is very bare bones so not sure what they can cut).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

I live in Bethesda and did not respond because my last kid will soon be out of MCPS. But in all my years of volunteering, and attending the general County-wide assemblies of school PTAs, I've noticed that parents are so much better organized in well-to-do districts. I think it's because those groups have more people who know how the world works, and which leverage has a chance to work. They know how to organize people, how to communicate, etc.

+1. It’s some nefarious under the table money or influence campaign. It’s up front organizing by each of the local PTAs with planned talking points and active parents who go to these meetings and respond to the surveys. It’s really no different than the level of parental engagement you see in each of the PTA committees and involvement in activities at these schools. Do I think that made a difference? Absolutely. It’s why you can’t just through money at Title I schools and expect the same results. It requires dedicated commitment from the community year in, year out. That’s somewhat coming from a place of privilege and frankly I don’t care. That’s why folks moved to these places in the first place. MCPS decided that social re-engineering was not viable and decided to focus on the areas immediately impacted by the school, as they should have. You had your chance to voice concerns this spring. It’s a bit late now to try to get organized when others have been doing this for years. And for FWIW, I would gladly pushback again against any changes from the current options and know our PTAs would as well.

So basically MCPS is outsourcing analysis and decision making to local PTAs to make decisions instead of doing rigorous analysis itself that doesn't prioritize some communities over others. That's an abdication of their responsibility and is gross. Communities should need attorneys to advocate for taxpayer funded resources.

PP, it’s NOT some nefarious campaign.

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.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

I live in Bethesda and did not respond because my last kid will soon be out of MCPS. But in all my years of volunteering, and attending the general County-wide assemblies of school PTAs, I've noticed that parents are so much better organized in well-to-do districts. I think it's because those groups have more people who know how the world works, and which leverage has a chance to work. They know how to organize people, how to communicate, etc.

+1. It’s some nefarious under the table money or influence campaign. It’s up front organizing by each of the local PTAs with planned talking points and active parents who go to these meetings and respond to the surveys. It’s really no different than the level of parental engagement you see in each of the PTA committees and involvement in activities at these schools. Do I think that made a difference? Absolutely. It’s why you can’t just through money at Title I schools and expect the same results. It requires dedicated commitment from the community year in, year out. That’s somewhat coming from a place of privilege and frankly I don’t care. That’s why folks moved to these places in the first place. MCPS decided that social re-engineering was not viable and decided to focus on the areas immediately impacted by the school, as they should have. You had your chance to voice concerns this spring. It’s a bit late now to try to get organized when others have been doing this for years. And for FWIW, I would gladly pushback again against any changes from the current options and know our PTAs would as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

What issues do you see as common for the "DCC Community" to advocate around in regards to the boundary study and program analysis? The reality is the DCC is large with a lot of economic diversity. My home is in-bounds for Einstein. I've had kids at Blair and Einstein and of course know families with kids at other DCC schools. These are middle class and upper middle class families (the most likely to know about these issues and to advocate), and I'm not sure there would be a lot of agreement amongst them about what we should be advocating for in terms of the DCC community.

DP - not getting rid of the DCC, for one? I don’t know any parents here who want that. And if they insist on getting rid of it, DCC high schools should *all* have advanced academic options for kids.

Those seem like pretty universal issues.

The entire plan is that all high schools should have advanced academic options for kids! Or are you the poster who defines "advanced academic options" to mean solely offering MVC?

DP but I for one would rather have the advanced classes offered at all schools rather than go through the DCC choice process and potentially end up at a school that doesn't have them. Maybe that's where some of the advocacy should focus- e.g., I think there is concern that by Einstein getting smaller, there wouldn't be enough students interested in certain advanced classes to offer them. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to enforce the same minimum at each school when the total number of students differs that much? Just a thought.

The point is that MCPS has been clear that every school will offer at least AP Calculus BC. I don't think it is unrealistic to say "If your kid wants to go beyond AP Calculus BC, please consider one of these magnet programs."

The same goes for a kid who wants to take three dance periods a day. That kid should apply to a performing arts magnet.

It's FINE for schools to specialize, actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

What issues do you see as common for the "DCC Community" to advocate around in regards to the boundary study and program analysis? The reality is the DCC is large with a lot of economic diversity. My home is in-bounds for Einstein. I've had kids at Blair and Einstein and of course know families with kids at other DCC schools. These are middle class and upper middle class families (the most likely to know about these issues and to advocate), and I'm not sure there would be a lot of agreement amongst them about what we should be advocating for in terms of the DCC community.

DP - not getting rid of the DCC, for one? I don’t know any parents here who want that. And if they insist on getting rid of it, DCC high schools should *all* have advanced academic options for kids.

Those seem like pretty universal issues.

The entire plan is that all high schools should have advanced academic options for kids! Or are you the poster who defines "advanced academic options" to mean solely offering MVC?

DP but I for one would rather have the advanced classes offered at all schools rather than go through the DCC choice process and potentially end up at a school that doesn't have them. Maybe that's where some of the advocacy should focus- e.g., I think there is concern that by Einstein getting smaller, there wouldn't be enough students interested in certain advanced classes to offer them. Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to enforce the same minimum at each school when the total number of students differs that much? Just a thought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

What issues do you see as common for the "DCC Community" to advocate around in regards to the boundary study and program analysis? The reality is the DCC is large with a lot of economic diversity. My home is in-bounds for Einstein. I've had kids at Blair and Einstein and of course know families with kids at other DCC schools. These are middle class and upper middle class families (the most likely to know about these issues and to advocate), and I'm not sure there would be a lot of agreement amongst them about what we should be advocating for in terms of the DCC community.

DP - not getting rid of the DCC, for one? I don’t know any parents here who want that. And if they insist on getting rid of it, DCC high schools should *all* have advanced academic options for kids.

Those seem like pretty universal issues.

The entire plan is that all high schools should have advanced academic options for kids! Or are you the poster who defines "advanced academic options" to mean solely offering MVC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t speak for the other clusters and I have no dog in this fight because my youngest will have just graduated from BCC, but the reason BCC wasn’t touched in this round was because we. already had a contentious boundary study not too long ago when they built Silver Creek MS not too long ago and because Rosemary Hills (K-2) splits into two different schools for 3rd-5th - Chevy Chase ES and North Chevy Chase. That’s how MCPS summarized the feedback from BCC at the BOE meetings this summer. The feedback from other clusters seemed more generic.

Tell us...that fight about which communities would benefit from a brand new middle school...did it result in any previously B-CC-zoned neighborhood being rezoned to another high school? Or B-CC becoming over-capacity by absorbing neighborhoods on the "wrong side of the tracks"?

No?

You do realize that other communities currently face split articulations.

Right?

And these are reasons, in the face of all the problems facing schools/communities to the east, not to consider touching B-CC? And as a happy consequence, since B-CC can't be touched and the Whitman pyramid really only can be involved if B-CC is involved, not to consider touching them, either?

Don't get us started on the dog that remains in the fight for empty-nesters. (The nest, that is...)

Why would B-CC be changed when it already meets the utilization, transportation and demographic criteria? I know people like to lump B-CC and Whitman together on this board, but B-CC is actually diverse. Look at the data tables. Part of what's hard about this for the DCC is that it's so affected by the program study that I think a lot of people were more focused on that rather than the boundary program. A friend was telling me about a meeting at Einstein that had something like 200 parents, so it's not like DCC parents there can't mobilize. They were just focused on a different priority.

It has no impact on them. Their schools have the courses and nothing changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any DCC people/orgs starting to pull things together? People we should contact if we want to get involved? Facebook groups or listservs where we can communicate about this? (If folks are creating new ones, probably makes sense for it to be focused on looking out for the DCC's interests both around the boundary study and program analysis/proposed DCC abolishment? Or just a broader DCC-families-united type group that can include but not be limited to advocacy for those goals?) Sign-on letters being drafted and circulated?

I don't have the capacity to start any of them myself but would love to plug in if they're moving elsewhere. And I think if we don't start organizing and coordinating ourselves in those ways we're not going to succeed.

Is coordinating through DCC PTAs an option or are they required to stay neutral on this sort of thing? Don't know if they would even get involved but just curious.

There is some but the problem is most of the PTA families kids will graduate and this not impact them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of screaming on DCUM threads, some of the posters here would be better served using their energy to actually advocate for their communities. MCPS and Flo refined the options based on the community feedback (which you would know if you participated in the community engagement events, survey, BOE meetings, and feedback sessions) and against the new constraints of the Region 6 model. If you didn’t open your mouth in round 1, don’t expect them to have taken your preferences into account. Everyone had the chance to give feedback and advocate, and they continue to have the opportunity to do so now. Put your energy where it belongs - it’s not here on DCUM.

At those meetings, Flo said that they had mechanisms to counter the disproportionate representation of some communities in the feedback.

Somehow, bowing to those communities still occurred. Despite other communities putting their energies into it.

One wonders how that might happen. Hmm....

Definitely you should focus all your energies on ragging on BCC rather than advocating and organizing for your own community.