Program Analysis Lets Shut It Down
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Given the debacle the boundary study, how can we ensure the program analysis 6 region changes is not approved?
If anyone is willing to take the lead, I’m happy to provide info from one of the magnets. It seems fiscally irresponsible and mismanaged. If we get a group of people representing (DCC/ RMIB/ Blair/ Poolesville), perhaps we can exert enough pressure to put a stop to this. |
Anonymous
| They will stop if there is threat of many lawsuits. |
Anonymous
on what basis would anyone sue? "My kid isn't getting special advanced coursework not offered at the school"? "My kid wasn't offered AP Music"? |
Anonymous
| I agree potential lawsuits are probably the best way to stop this farce. I’m willing to donate $$ to hire a lawyer for class action if there are valid enough reasons. I’m so gutted by the central office and BOE corruption on wasting taxpayer’s money on doing things that tax payer is against to and lie in front of the public constantly. For the latter, I think we can probably collect enough evidence. |
Anonymous
again, on what basis? |
Anonymous
MCPS isn’t following their own regulations on program development. They haven’t provided a valid educational justification for the new programs, what the goals are, or how the new programs will achieve them. They haven’t presented real numbers on staffing (including reassigning current teachers), or any data on the how the new proposal will impact current MCPS programs, schools and students (exact language from the reg pasted below). That last point is important. If they did a comprehensive impact study they would have to admit that the new model is less flexible than the DCC and NEC, leaving those communities with a net loss of choice. They’d have to clearly state that they will be reducing access existing magnets, both by changing the eligible applicant pool and by cutting the size of the programs (the presentation last week had RM only accepting 60 non-RM students per year to the IB magnet. It’s about 100 per year now, I think). They’d have to acknowledge the likely changes to local programs that will now have to compete with magnet programs. And they’d have to admit that they’re not replicating the great magnets we already have. The curriculum samples they showed in last week were watered-down versions that line up with newly revised state pathways. Will they also water down existing programs? That’s another thing they don’t want to discuss. MCPS also hasn’t talked about the massive socioeconomic disparities in current magnet enrollment and how they intend to improve access for low-income students. If they use current admissions processes, they’ll just compound the problem, giving more opportunities to affluent kids while shutting out their less wealthy peers. By not clearly stating what these programs are supposed to do and not disclosing the full scope of likely impacts, MCPS breaking their own rules and hiding the real effects of their plan. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like there is room to threaten to take MCPS to court and demand that they change existing programs until they have done the requisite impact studies. https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/ieera.pdf The program development regs require: "Each proposal for a special program shall be in writing and include: 1. The name of the proposed special program and the office or unit which shall be responsible for its planning and implementation 2. The MCPS Goal(s) of Education, MCPS/BOE priority, or Board policy which the program is designed to help achieve 3. A brief statement of the specific student needs or population the program is designed to meet 4. A strategic plan, briefly stating the goal, objectives and strategies to be employed in the special program over a three year period, supported whenever possible by applicable research studies 5. For each of the first three years: a) The number, grade levels and schools attended by students the program is designed to serve b) The specific learning or skill gains anticipated for students served c) The additional staff, or those to be reassigned from other tasks (by number and position class), and any other resource and facility requirements, including those to be budgeted by other MCPS units (such as transportation, etc.) d) A plan for evaluating the special program and its success in meeting stated student needs 6. A plan for communicating information about the special program and its successes to other MCPS staff 7. The specific rationale for limiting the special program to certain schools, geographic areas, minority/ethnic/socioeconomic or other groups, or special needs 8. The anticipated impact of the special program on other MCPS programs, schools or students." |
Anonymous
| I was so disappointed in the last BOE meeting. The Board is eating it up -- there is no way they will not approve. |
Anonymous
| My question to everybody who is against the regional 6 program... don't you think this will increase the amount of space across the county? Currently, in SMAC, there are about 200 spaces in the county. But now there will be about 600. I know for the Blair program, they have around 1000 applicants from across the county, I wonder how many of those were DCC? |
Anonymous
I don't know about the numbers. But I think that MCPS is putting way too much of a focus on specialized programs when they can't get their act together to offer strong options at local schools. In other words, I am against the 6-region model because I think MCPS should put its resources resources into making sure all schools have good programming. You shouldn't have to move to a W school or go to a magnet program to get a good education. Most kids -- 85% -- end up at their home schools. The more money they spend on programming, the less there is for improving home schools. |
Anonymous
|
Here is one basis for potential civil right scrutiny of the regional program:
The original Blair Magnet was created in the 1980s as part of MCPS’s voluntary desegregation strategy (funded by a federal grant), designed to draw students of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds together. Now, a regional plan that narrows access by zipcode risks reversing that progress. It could draw scrutiny under federal and state civil rights frameworks. |
Anonymous
| Mcps has no idea what they’re doing. And they’re spending lots of money in the process. |
Anonymous
My concern is that it won’t be as good. It seems like a shame to get rid of something that’s working really well. If they think more spots are needed, why not add some regional programs without eliminating the countywide programs? |
Anonymous
This. I want my kid to go to their home school and have course options similar if not exactly the same as the schools all across county. |
Anonymous
So Blair has 1000 applicants. Has anyone shared how many of those applicants are remotely qualified? I promise some portion of those applicants would not be academically ready/suited to the program. When you apply, you can check the box to apply to every program and throw your hat in the ring. It doesn’t indicate you have the prerequisites, nor is it binding. Kids turn down program invites all the time. |
Anonymous
I think seeing how many were wait-listed would get at how many qualified people are not getting a spot. |