Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 many many people. 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.

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

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

+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.

No, Jeannie Franklin is on the regional program project, not the boundary studies.

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.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

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.

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.

You are completely correct. I have the wrong name. I apologize. Will try to get the correct name.

Cat Malchodi is the boundary study staffer who spoke at Kennedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not supportive of school choice which this petition supports, so not signing. School choice leads to degradation of less desired schools and limits the options of less resources kids.

I am not sure which petition you are referring to. But respectfully, I suggest you read the One Step at a Time petition again. It DOES NOT advocate for school choice. It simply points out the unilateral elimination of the DCC. The requests being made are at the bottom - separate the boundary and academic programs implementation, delay programs rollout, and add more boundary options that spread change across the county.

from the petition:
"We are particularly concerned about:...
...The unilateral elimination of school choice within the Downcounty Consortium, which has long provided families with flexibility and access to specialized programs."

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

Nice strawman. PP argued that the petition did not support school choice. It obviously does, per the quote from the petition.

You can change things with community engagement. The concern is they are taking it away unilaterally not engaging communities about how to change the system equitably.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 many many people. 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.

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

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

+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.

No, Jeannie Franklin is on the regional program project, not the boundary studies.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 many many people. 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.

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

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

+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.

No, Jeannie Franklin is on the regional program project, not the boundary studies.

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.

That's a talking point. She has no role in creating boundary options.

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.

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.

You are completely correct. I have the wrong name. I apologize. Will try to get the correct name.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

Anonymous wrote: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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not supportive of school choice which this petition supports, so not signing. School choice leads to degradation of less desired schools and limits the options of less resources kids.

I am not sure which petition you are referring to. But respectfully, I suggest you read the One Step at a Time petition again. It DOES NOT advocate for school choice. It simply points out the unilateral elimination of the DCC. The requests being made are at the bottom - separate the boundary and academic programs implementation, delay programs rollout, and add more boundary options that spread change across the county.

from the petition:
"We are particularly concerned about:...
...The unilateral elimination of school choice within the Downcounty Consortium, which has long provided families with flexibility and access to specialized programs."

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

Nice strawman. PP argued that the petition did not support school choice. It obviously does, per the quote from the petition.

You can change things with community engagement. The concern is they are taking it away unilaterally not engaging communities about how to change the system equitably.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not supportive of school choice which this petition supports, so not signing. School choice leads to degradation of less desired schools and limits the options of less resources kids.

I am not sure which petition you are referring to. But respectfully, I suggest you read the One Step at a Time petition again. It DOES NOT advocate for school choice. It simply points out the unilateral elimination of the DCC. The requests being made are at the bottom - separate the boundary and academic programs implementation, delay programs rollout, and add more boundary options that spread change across the county.

from the petition:
"We are particularly concerned about:...
...The unilateral elimination of school choice within the Downcounty Consortium, which has long provided families with flexibility and access to specialized programs."

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?

Nice strawman. PP argued that the petition did not support school choice. It obviously does, per the quote from the petition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not supportive of school choice which this petition supports, so not signing. School choice leads to degradation of less desired schools and limits the options of less resources kids.

I am not sure which petition you are referring to. But respectfully, I suggest you read the One Step at a Time petition again. It DOES NOT advocate for school choice. It simply points out the unilateral elimination of the DCC. The requests being made are at the bottom - separate the boundary and academic programs implementation, delay programs rollout, and add more boundary options that spread change across the county.

from the petition:
"We are particularly concerned about:...
...The unilateral elimination of school choice within the Downcounty Consortium, which has long provided families with flexibility and access to specialized programs."

You honestly think that a community having something they value taken away from them, without any warning or engagement, shouldn't be allowed to mention it in a petition as an example of why they are concerned about MCPS's behavior? Seriously?