Just how many new programs is MCPS starting at high schools in 2027?

[Anonymous]

I heard that it was 100 new regional high school programs, with perhaps 35 already in place.

What are they doing to develop these programs? Are they buying curriculum? How are teachers getting trained to teach new subject matter?

That's a lot of programs -- and a lot of churn/resources for nothing -- for regional programs that have very limited transportation options. If you can't get your students to home high schools early, then you have no access to these regional programs.

If MCPS builds it, do they have any idea how many students will come?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that it was 100 new regional high school programs, with perhaps 35 already in place.

What are they doing to develop these programs? Are they buying curriculum? How are teachers getting trained to teach new subject matter?

That's a lot of programs -- and a lot of churn/resources for nothing -- for regional programs that have very limited transportation options. If you can't get your students to home high schools early, then you have no access to these regional programs.

If MCPS builds it, do they have any idea how many students will come?

Do not question the king.

[Anonymous]

Good questions and then have zero answers for you. What an enormous waste of precious dollars. I can't support tax increases for this bs

[Anonymous]

If they could just get the basics right with all the $$$ we pay in taxes. Is a good curriculum for core subjects too much to ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they could just get the basics right with all the $$$ we pay in taxes. Is a good curriculum for core subjects too much to ask?

Yes, way too much, those administrators need this bs to justify their fat checks

[Anonymous]

Where have you been? We've been asking these questions since MCPS trotted out the idea last year.

[Anonymous]

The poor kids who will be the guinea pigs in the first year. It's going to be a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they could just get the basics right with all the $$$ we pay in taxes. Is a good curriculum for core subjects too much to ask?

I agree. They are rolling out these programs to cover up how bad they are at core instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they could just get the basics right with all the $$$ we pay in taxes. Is a good curriculum for core subjects too much to ask?

I agree. They are rolling out these programs to cover up how bad they are at core instruction.

I mean, given the well-publicized poor math and literacy proficiency rates, I don't think they're really covering up how bad they are at core instructions: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1289373.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that it was 100 new regional high school programs, with perhaps 35 already in place.

What are they doing to develop these programs? Are they buying curriculum? How are teachers getting trained to teach new subject matter?

That's a lot of programs -- and a lot of churn/resources for nothing -- for regional programs that have very limited transportation options. If you can't get your students to home high schools early, then you have no access to these regional programs.

If MCPS builds it, do they have any idea how many students will come?

Yes, if you count up all the "pathways," it's in the ballpark of 100, around 3-6 at each school. (For example, arts has visual art, theater, music, design, dance...)

That said, of the schools I'm familiar with, the majority of the listed pathways/programs already exist in full or in part. (That's part of why MCPS did their "asset mapping" and decided to put programs at schools that already were mostly prepared to offer them, even if/when it just makes the richer schools stronger, rather than thinking about program placement with an equity lens and considering what's best for all schools and students. On the one hand that's understandable if you're trying to launch 100 regional program pathways at one time. On the other hand, how about you just don't do that, but instead go slower so you can make good choices and do things right?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they could just get the basics right with all the $$$ we pay in taxes. Is a good curriculum for core subjects too much to ask?

Evidently it is, let’s start. With externally developed quality English curriculum for high school. I’m tired of homemade curriculum.

[Anonymous]

There are thousands of people on this Baird. Maybe we should each write our board rep and also our city council member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The poor kids who will be the guinea pigs in the first year. It's going to be a disaster.

My kid will be a guinea pig. Its disappointing that are rushing in to this.

[Anonymous]

They will force schools to provide it with the funding they already have, which will decrease as schools get smaller in student population. Our school had one of the proposed programs and removed it due to lack of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that it was 100 new regional high school programs, with perhaps 35 already in place.

What are they doing to develop these programs? Are they buying curriculum? How are teachers getting trained to teach new subject matter?

That's a lot of programs -- and a lot of churn/resources for nothing -- for regional programs that have very limited transportation options. If you can't get your students to home high schools early, then you have no access to these regional programs.

If MCPS builds it, do they have any idea how many students will come?

Yes, if you count up all the "pathways," it's in the ballpark of 100, around 3-6 at each school. (For example, arts has visual art, theater, music, design, dance...)

That said, of the schools I'm familiar with, the majority of the listed pathways/programs already exist in full or in part. (That's part of why MCPS did their "asset mapping" and decided to put programs at schools that already were mostly prepared to offer them, even if/when it just makes the richer schools stronger, rather than thinking about program placement with an equity lens and considering what's best for all schools and students. On the one hand that's understandable if you're trying to launch 100 regional program pathways at one time. On the other hand, how about you just don't do that, but instead go slower so you can make good choices and do things right?)

Einstein, for example, doesn't have AP music theory or any other advanced music/arts classes (outside of VAPA). When student population is reduced, they will get less funding so its going to be a program in name only. This is all for show to force kids back to their home schools.