Program analysis webinars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly speaking, I think many parents/students want to see the HS programs expand, but not with the six regional model. I would say probably 3 or 4 regions would make more sense.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is having a series of webinars on the program analysis from 9/29 to 10/27 (click on the link at the top of this page: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/ ) Some are DCC or NEC specific and others are general.

I don't know whether they will be structured to actually collect feedback from attendees (versus just being "informational"/answering questions), but I imagine there will be ways to make your opinions heard during the meetings regardless...

I actually don't care that it's 6 regions.

I care that MCPS has not done its due diligence, can't answer basic questions about the outcomes and structures, nor is it engaging authentically with community members striving to get answers to those questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

When asked about Einstein's program, they noted that the shifts could mean fewer students and that that could create some issues for the school/programs, but didn't elaborate. We are left to pull from that that fewer students = fewer resources = fewer class.options...with no differential central support to make up for that. I'd guess that would go for things across the board -- VAC (becoming regional instead of countywide), VAPA (becoming local without the DCC-wide pull, and with the regional performing arts placed at Northwood, with its new facility, resulting in even Einstein-catchment students trying to head to another school) and the IB Diploma Programme (with more peeling off for the regional at BCC than had been peeling off to RMIB and Kennedy, combines, and with no consortium-choice draw to maintain numbers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

When asked about Einstein's program, they noted that the shifts could mean fewer students and that that could create some issues for the school/programs, but didn't elaborate. We are left to pull from that that fewer students = fewer resources = fewer class.options...with no differential central support to make up for that. I'd guess that would go for things across the board -- VAC (becoming regional instead of countywide), VAPA (becoming local without the DCC-wide pull, and with the regional performing arts placed at Northwood, with its new facility, resulting in even Einstein-catchment students trying to head to another school) and the IB Diploma Programme (with more peeling off for the regional at BCC than had been peeling off to RMIB and Kennedy, combines, and with no consortium-choice draw to maintain numbers).

They didn’t elaborate because they know what the effects will be and they don’t care. Parents have tried to tell them. MCPS has forged ahead anyway. They’ve decided that adding IB and STEM programs at Wooton and BCC is the most important goal.

Money talks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

When asked about Einstein's program, they noted that the shifts could mean fewer students and that that could create some issues for the school/programs, but didn't elaborate. We are left to pull from that that fewer students = fewer resources = fewer class.options...with no differential central support to make up for that. I'd guess that would go for things across the board -- VAC (becoming regional instead of countywide), VAPA (becoming local without the DCC-wide pull, and with the regional performing arts placed at Northwood, with its new facility, resulting in even Einstein-catchment students trying to head to another school) and the IB Diploma Programme (with more peeling off for the regional at BCC than had been peeling off to RMIB and Kennedy, combines, and with no consortium-choice draw to maintain numbers).

VAPA is not a DCC-wide program. It is an "academy" that any student who goes to Einstein can participate in.

[Anonymous]

Some questions that I know were asked and not answered at today’s noon session were why is visual and performing arts in separate schools for Einstein/Northwood but placed together for every other region? Why was Northwood chosen for the performing arts when Einstein has a well established program? Will the school board be voting? And can you speak to how drops in enrollment will impact ability to maintain local programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

When asked about Einstein's program, they noted that the shifts could mean fewer students and that that could create some issues for the school/programs, but didn't elaborate. We are left to pull from that that fewer students = fewer resources = fewer class.options...with no differential central support to make up for that. I'd guess that would go for things across the board -- VAC (becoming regional instead of countywide), VAPA (becoming local without the DCC-wide pull, and with the regional performing arts placed at Northwood, with its new facility, resulting in even Einstein-catchment students trying to head to another school) and the IB Diploma Programme (with more peeling off for the regional at BCC than had been peeling off to RMIB and Kennedy, combines, and with no consortium-choice draw to maintain numbers).

VAPA is not a DCC-wide program. It is an "academy" that any student who goes to Einstein can participate in.

And kids from the whole DCC choose Einstein to participate in VAPA. Just like kids from the whole DCC choose Wheaton for the engineering academy (not the magnet - Wheaton has to engineering tracks). Cutting off choice effects enrollment in the DCC schools. Some “local” programs won’t be allowed to accept out-of-boundary students anymore. That will lead to cuts for those programs.

[Anonymous]

At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.

You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.

You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform

That's not a feedback form, that's them gathering questions to answer in their FAQ. They've never put out a feedback form as far as I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.

Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.

You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform

That's not a feedback form, that's them gathering questions to answer in their FAQ. They've never put out a feedback form as far as I know.

Because they don’t want feedback. This is Taylor’s idea and he doesn’t want pesky students and parents getting in the way of his big vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly speaking, I think many parents/students want to see the HS programs expand, but not with the six regional model. I would say probably 3 or 4 regions would make more sense.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is having a series of webinars on the program analysis from 9/29 to 10/27 (click on the link at the top of this page: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/ ) Some are DCC or NEC specific and others are general.

I don't know whether they will be structured to actually collect feedback from attendees (versus just being "informational"/answering questions), but I imagine there will be ways to make your opinions heard during the meetings regardless...

I actually don't care that it's 6 regions.

I care that MCPS has not done its due diligence, can't answer basic questions about the outcomes and structures, nor is it engaging authentically with community members striving to get answers to those questions.

+1
I have no confidence that they will stand good programs. This seems to be slipshod. They should be doing much greater analysis to put together a proposal where they can answer questions and explains what they are doing to keep program quality high across regions. Otherwise it is just limiting access to successful programs.