Please be aware of what is about to go away:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

This, but ultimately it’s not up to the parents.

“ A design team, made up of families, community members, and school-based staff are meeting now and will recommend what programs should be offered within a reasonable geographic area and what programs should be offered at all schools. ” I would be surprised if the Einstein community didn’t fight for VAPA and VAC.

I want to be clear about this: I am on the program design team as a parent. The members of the team outside of MCPS central office staff have absolutely no power. We regularly bring up concerns, and they are ignored. It is for show only. All decisions are made by central office staff. It is a sham of a process.

With the BOE signing off on it.

Eventually. But for now, MCPS is stating that the recommendations are from the program design team--and that is not accurate. They are from central office staff. They have been presented to the parents/teachers/community memers on the program design team for feedback, and the majority of the time, that feedback is ignored. What you see at Board meetings is exactly what the design team saw, despite members very clearly articulating problems and concerns that are not addressed.

Does the school Board have access to that feedback that’s being ignored by central office staff?

People with direct knowledge should sign up for public comments at the BOE meetings.

The BOE rarely acknowledges anyone who testifies or cares about community concern if you watch the meetings. On a rare occasion you might get a response but no action or follow up to address the concerns.

But at least you know for sure they'll actually hear what you're saying. And just because they don't mention it immediately afterwards doesn't mean they haven't absorbed it for future decision-making/action. Still very worth it IMO.

If you look at their patterns, they rarely consider comments in less it meets their agenda already. They should be thanking each individual for coming, acknowledging what they are saying and discuss the issue at hand.

They do the thanking part, which is annoying and frankly performative, to be honest. There's no actual follow-up or substantive conversation with public comments though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

This doesn't make sense when the board voted to eliminate the MVA, an autism program, a trade program, and one school's extended school year. If they are managing the budget, then we should be holding them accountable for the mismanagement of the budget at a minimum and how do all these new plans fit within the budget, which includes opening up two new schools (which should be the priority as its very much needed).

That sounds pretty bad to remove CASE, depending on if it was a popular program or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

This, but ultimately it’s not up to the parents.

“ A design team, made up of families, community members, and school-based staff are meeting now and will recommend what programs should be offered within a reasonable geographic area and what programs should be offered at all schools. ” I would be surprised if the Einstein community didn’t fight for VAPA and VAC.

I want to be clear about this: I am on the program design team as a parent. The members of the team outside of MCPS central office staff have absolutely no power. We regularly bring up concerns, and they are ignored. It is for show only. All decisions are made by central office staff. It is a sham of a process.

With the BOE signing off on it.

Eventually. But for now, MCPS is stating that the recommendations are from the program design team--and that is not accurate. They are from central office staff. They have been presented to the parents/teachers/community memers on the program design team for feedback, and the majority of the time, that feedback is ignored. What you see at Board meetings is exactly what the design team saw, despite members very clearly articulating problems and concerns that are not addressed.

Does the school Board have access to that feedback that’s being ignored by central office staff?

People with direct knowledge should sign up for public comments at the BOE meetings.

The BOE rarely acknowledges anyone who testifies or cares about community concern if you watch the meetings. On a rare occasion you might get a response but no action or follow up to address the concerns.

But at least you know for sure they'll actually hear what you're saying. And just because they don't mention it immediately afterwards doesn't mean they haven't absorbed it for future decision-making/action. Still very worth it IMO.

If you look at their patterns, they rarely consider comments in less it meets their agenda already. They should be thanking each individual for coming, acknowledging what they are saying and discuss the issue at hand.

They do the thanking part, which is annoying and frankly performative, to be honest. There's no actual follow-up or substantive conversation with public comments though.

When they do, its very rare and only for those who speak on topics of interest to them. Come election time, they get more friendly and more approachable/thank people, but I'm looking at all year and prior years, not just the now. On occasion, they provide statements, but that is very rare too.

I had someone reach out to me and they blamed the attorney's on how they behave and respond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

But there will be programs like this that benefit even more students throughout the county. Seems like a big win for tax payers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

That's good, she's never once responded to any of my emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

Ugh, that's awful. Can you paste it here?

She really thinks she can just say "Well MCPS told us we weren't allowed to weigh in on any of the program analysis decisions and they were just giving us a vote on them as a courtesy, so we took their word for it and voted yes because they wanted us to even though we disagree, but don't blame us because we have no control over programs" and then get elected to County Council?

Maybe they want to get elected to the council to then be able to vote to fund all this. The council is going to have to signficantly increase the budge to pay for two new schools, the additional busses and other costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

Ugh, that's awful. Can you paste it here?

She really thinks she can just say "Well MCPS told us we weren't allowed to weigh in on any of the program analysis decisions and they were just giving us a vote on them as a courtesy, so we took their word for it and voted yes because they wanted us to even though we disagree, but don't blame us because we have no control over programs" and then get elected to County Council?

If they did not agree why vote yes.

The vote is not until December but apparently they are telling people they have no authority over program changes so I assume that means they are planning to vote yes no matter what? It doesn't make sense to me either. They get to vote on it, so they get to tell MCPS what they need to see to vote yes and that if they don't see it they will vote no.

Just a general question: has anyone on this board counted the statistics of BOE voting? How many times do they not unanimously vote yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has MCPS shared which of the programs will be criteria based and which will be interest/lottery? Or will that differ region to region?

The criteria-based programs are indicated with asterisks on the slides beginning on page 40:

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

Ugh, that's awful. Can you paste it here?

She really thinks she can just say "Well MCPS told us we weren't allowed to weigh in on any of the program analysis decisions and they were just giving us a vote on them as a courtesy, so we took their word for it and voted yes because they wanted us to even though we disagree, but don't blame us because we have no control over programs" and then get elected to County Council?

If they did not agree why vote yes.

The vote is not until December but apparently they are telling people they have no authority over program changes so I assume that means they are planning to vote yes no matter what? It doesn't make sense to me either. They get to vote on it, so they get to tell MCPS what they need to see to vote yes and that if they don't see it they will vote no.

Just a general question: has anyone on this board counted the statistics of BOE voting? How many times do they not unanimously vote yes?

That would be really interesting to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the proposal, Wheaton Biomedical is also going away (moving to Kennedy.)

And Wheaton Engineering is going away completely -- no idea what happens to the PLTW grants and all the engineering equipment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

But there will be programs like this that benefit even more students throughout the county. Seems like a big win for tax payers.

Look at it carefully, no, it will open up a few more slots but most kids will go to their home schools, which isn't a win as this will cost more money and many of our kids will have less, not more. The W schools, with lots of offerings will be fine, but the other communities will not be. And, this will need a huge budget increase so they will have to raise taxes again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

Pretty big loss for Wheaton, which has built a strong reputation for math instruction and a huge interest-based engineering academy that drew significant numbers of kids from our (not zoned for Wheaton) middle school, and is now going to be in a region with schools that are farther away from it and lose its highly-respected magnet programs that helped them attract faculty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

But there will be programs like this that benefit even more students throughout the county. Seems like a big win for tax payers.

That is NOT going to happen. Guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the proposal, Wheaton Biomedical is also going away (moving to Kennedy.)

And Wheaton Engineering is going away completely -- no idea what happens to the PLTW grants and all the engineering equipment.

It says Wheaton would have SMCS and Engineering