Will 6 Region Model Pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

I’m the PP who earlier brought up getting rid of the special programs. I specifically said all HS need to offer robust academic differentiation AND support. That the six programs will cost more is exactly the problem. MCPS should focus on meeting more needs of more students, not continuing to focus on the chosen few who get access to special accelerated programs. I don’t believe for a second they’re going to be able to offer any program to any student who wants it, as they claimed in the meeting to the County Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

I’m the PP who earlier brought up getting rid of the special programs. I specifically said all HS need to offer robust academic differentiation AND support. That the six programs will cost more is exactly the problem. MCPS should focus on meeting more needs of more students, not continuing to focus on the chosen few who get access to special accelerated programs. I don’t believe for a second they’re going to be able to offer any program to any student who wants it, as they claimed in the meeting to the County Council.

I agree. Their claim that the waitlists will be zero under their proposed plan is preposterous.

And I’ve said in other threads that the focus should be on strengthening student performance on core subjects.

This proposed six region plan is just a big distraction, and if it is passed, will funnel time, money, and resources away from strengthening core subjects in all schools—all for the roughly 10% of the students who attend these magnets. MCPS’s focus should be on the 90% who do not attend magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

I’m the PP who earlier brought up getting rid of the special programs. I specifically said all HS need to offer robust academic differentiation AND support. That the six programs will cost more is exactly the problem. MCPS should focus on meeting more needs of more students, not continuing to focus on the chosen few who get access to special accelerated programs. I don’t believe for a second they’re going to be able to offer any program to any student who wants it, as they claimed in the meeting to the County Council.

I agree. Their claim that the waitlists will be zero under their proposed plan is preposterous.

And I’ve said in other threads that the focus should be on strengthening student performance on core subjects.

This proposed six region plan is just a big distraction, and if it is passed, will funnel time, money, and resources away from strengthening core subjects in all schools—all for the roughly 10% of the students who attend these magnets. MCPS’s focus should be on the 90% who do not attend magnets.

+1,000

WTAF this is why nobody trusts you MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

I’m the PP who earlier brought up getting rid of the special programs. I specifically said all HS need to offer robust academic differentiation AND support. That the six programs will cost more is exactly the problem. MCPS should focus on meeting more needs of more students, not continuing to focus on the chosen few who get access to special accelerated programs. I don’t believe for a second they’re going to be able to offer any program to any student who wants it, as they claimed in the meeting to the County Council.

I agree. Their claim that the waitlists will be zero under their proposed plan is preposterous.

And I’ve said in other threads that the focus should be on strengthening student performance on core subjects.

This proposed six region plan is just a big distraction, and if it is passed, will funnel time, money, and resources away from strengthening core subjects in all schools—all for the roughly 10% of the students who attend these magnets. MCPS’s focus should be on the 90% who do not attend magnets.

Do they mean they just accept and reject and no waitlist LOL? There will be unequal interest in different types of programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

I’m the PP who earlier brought up getting rid of the special programs. I specifically said all HS need to offer robust academic differentiation AND support. That the six programs will cost more is exactly the problem. MCPS should focus on meeting more needs of more students, not continuing to focus on the chosen few who get access to special accelerated programs. I don’t believe for a second they’re going to be able to offer any program to any student who wants it, as they claimed in the meeting to the County Council.

Agree but that's not what's going to happen. Really, the only things that change are the boundaries and lottery in the DCC and NEC - and those kids who have less, will have even less when the school sizes are reduced, as they will lose staff so they will have to reduce course offerings. This increases the inequities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

That’s what I mean. Let’s first make sure we have $ for textbooks for regular math and history classes in all grades before trying to stand up the educators, coordinators, and materials for 6 each of 15 special programs.

For a lot of math and ap classes they DO have textbooks but refuse to use them. In science, we've had multiple teachers say they have the books but the students will not or cannot read them so they don't use them. We have AP teachers who will not use them for math. Lets not assume they don't have it. Also, there are free textbooks online and cheaper ones like openstax, so there is no excuse not to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

That’s what I mean. Let’s first make sure we have $ for textbooks for regular math and history classes in all grades before trying to stand up the educators, coordinators, and materials for 6 each of 15 special programs.

I’d be supportive of ending all of the programs and focusing on just getting basics in all schools.

We’re not at one of the higher FARMS schools but I can guess that the biggest issues at those schools are hardly even discussed on this board (scores, truancy, etc).

Let's talk about schools partnering more with parents, as the only way to address truancy is to do it through the parents.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t they make everyone go to their home school and then have an accelerated track within each school (what they used to call “gifted and talented”) for kids who need a faster pace. Keeps the kids with higher abilities together without bussing. Some schools would need two or three accelerated classes per grade as opposed to one but every school would stand up at least one and keep those kids together for all classes. Worked in the 90s just fine from what I recall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they make everyone go to their home school and then have an accelerated track within each school (what they used to call “gifted and talented”) for kids who need a faster pace. Keeps the kids with higher abilities together without bussing. Some schools would need two or three accelerated classes per grade as opposed to one but every school would stand up at least one and keep those kids together for all classes. Worked in the 90s just fine from what I recall.

Plus a remedial track for those kids farther behind so they don’t drag others with them. Basically, all classes differentiated by skill. I’m sure I’ll get yelled down about this but I just don’t understand why it’s not the norm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t they make everyone go to their home school and then have an accelerated track within each school (what they used to call “gifted and talented”) for kids who need a faster pace. Keeps the kids with higher abilities together without bussing. Some schools would need two or three accelerated classes per grade as opposed to one but every school would stand up at least one and keep those kids together for all classes. Worked in the 90s just fine from what I recall.

Plus a remedial track for those kids farther behind so they don’t drag others with them. Basically, all classes differentiated by skill. I’m sure I’ll get yelled down about this but I just don’t understand why it’s not the norm?

Because of optics. The majority of the “gifted” classes would be white and Asian, and the majority of the remedial classes would be black and Hispanic. MCPS will not allow this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

+1

They have basically said they are ending the DCC and NEC and countywide magnets and putting :something: in their place so this certainly isn't just an "analysis" (I WISH someone at MCPS knew how to do an analysis) but they can never say what they are actually doing. This is why parents get angry MCPS CO - you are not honest people.

I think they are saying what they are actually doing--the six region model with the common-themed programs in each region. But they haven't explained how they will be able to do it.

We don't actually know what any of the programs will look like or where they will be yet. They have made initial half baked proposals for how to distribute the programs but I sense they are revising that based on how horrifically terrible their choices were.

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

What happens when there isn't enough interest in the education program at Einstein? What happens when the SMCS and VAC teachers get poached to other regions? Parents dgaf about what programs are called. They care about whether they actually are delivering what their kids need.

The education program will most definitely fail. Einstein is in deep trouble.

There is no demand for it. Einstein had it and they shut it down.

I simply do not think there is enough reman for 6 education programs across the county. Maybe 1 upcountry and 1 downcounty. Why are they not assessing actual demand for these programs? Such incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

+1

They have basically said they are ending the DCC and NEC and countywide magnets and putting :something: in their place so this certainly isn't just an "analysis" (I WISH someone at MCPS knew how to do an analysis) but they can never say what they are actually doing. This is why parents get angry MCPS CO - you are not honest people.

I think they are saying what they are actually doing--the six region model with the common-themed programs in each region. But they haven't explained how they will be able to do it.

We don't actually know what any of the programs will look like or where they will be yet. They have made initial half baked proposals for how to distribute the programs but I sense they are revising that based on how horrifically terrible their choices were.

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

What happens when there isn't enough interest in the education program at Einstein? What happens when the SMCS and VAC teachers get poached to other regions? Parents dgaf about what programs are called. They care about whether they actually are delivering what their kids need.

The education program will most definitely fail. Einstein is in deep trouble.

There is no demand for it. Einstein had it and they shut it down.

I simply do not think there is enough reman for 6 education programs across the county. Maybe 1 upcountry and 1 downcounty. Why are they not assessing actual demand for these programs? Such incompetence.

Demand. There is not demand for 6 education programs.

[Anonymous]

does it make more sense if they start with 3 regions? one region includes Poolesville, one region includes Richard Montgomery, and one region includes Blair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:does it make more sense if they start with 3 regions? one region includes Poolesville, one region includes Richard Montgomery, and one region includes Blair.

Yes! This makes a lot more sense than what they're trying to do. For some programs, there won't be demand for 6 programs. For others, there won't be supply (teachers). Three regions seems a lot more tenable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:does it make more sense if they start with 3 regions? one region includes Poolesville, one region includes Richard Montgomery, and one region includes Blair.

It would be much more reasonable and one program in one HS would also make it less likely to drain or mess up the local resources. Wait till year 1 (2027-2028). Every high schooler will be negatively impacted. It has proved to be a total mess in Taylor’s previous count.