Program Analysis Lets Shut It Down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

But they split from the original countywide scope and created two regions when the Poolesvile magnet opened. Isn't this just continuing with additional regions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But they split from the original countywide scope and created two regions when the Poolesvile magnet opened. Isn't this just continuing with additional regions?

The argument there was also equitable access mainly for upper county people who lived far away from Blair. Plus the social-economic diversity from the 9 HSs in the upper county satisfies the desegregation scope.
Now the regional discrepancies using FARM and EML metrics won't satisfy that scope anymore. Such huge discrepancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will stop if there is threat of many lawsuits.

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"?

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."

Great summary and reference. Thanks for your initiation OP. If a gofundme is created to hire a class suit lawyer, I'm happy to chip in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hello, maybe county Council can stop approving whatever $ they get asked

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hello, maybe county Council can stop approving whatever $ they get asked

Julie and Silvestre are campaigning for county council positions. They will greenlight everything MCPS wants to do.

[Anonymous]

They were supposed to start with an evaluation of current programs to see what’s working. Imagine if they had led with that- real simple like:

Here’s the number of spots at each current magnet or special program. Here is the number of (qualified) applicants. Here is where in the county they are applying from. Here’s the socioeconomic and racial make up of each program and school.

Just simple stuff like that would have gone a long way towards getting people on board with massive changes.

Instead, they shoehorned this in under something called the Crown/Damascus boundary study which no one paid attention unless they lived close by these schools.

It’s a real shame. My kids are not going to be affected by this but it is so short-sighted and stupid! I feel like we are being led by the old Soviet Union politburo- we’re being gaslighted and everything is top down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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?

+1000 Even the new name "STEM focused program" indicates that it won't be the same high-quality program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Given how much the demographics of the county has changed since then, this would be a hard sell. Also, as the 6 regions brings programs closer and expands seat it addresses need’s of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. No option is going to please everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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?

+1000 Even the new name "STEM focused program" indicates that it won't be the same high-quality program

At least some schools get something, oh wait, they aready have stem, while the rest of our kids are left behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was so disappointed in the last BOE meeting. The Board is eating it up -- there is no way they will not approve.

They seemed stunned into silence- overwhelmed, like the rest of us- 100 slides!

The BOE needs the materials 10 days ahead so they can digest it. I’m assuming of course, that they are not getting much advanced notice with this…iterative process…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will stop if there is threat of many lawsuits.

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"?

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."

Sorry, champ. Agencies’ internal regulations don’t create rights for other people. If this is the best you can do, spend your money on private school instead of a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

I just read the new presentation slides more closely, and found out that integrated math 1 (IM1; covering Algebra 1 and a little bit of geometry) is assumed for all programs, except for IB and STEM. For IB, they are allowed to move up, and for STEM, they start with IM2 (covering some geometry and Algebra 2). Right now SMCS begins with Algebra 2 for the slowest path and function for the fastest path. For RMIB, I believe they have a similar slow and fast path beginning levels.

So in the new regional model, the fastest math pathway would be: IM2 -> PreCalc -> Calc AB -> Calc BC/AP Stat. This is one year slower than the fastest math pathway provided right now at MCPS:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

For biomedical science program (Page 43), the math pathway skips the entire preCalc and Calc, but only offers AP Stat for junior and senior years. This makes me doubt if anyone in the design team really has any biomedical background. Calculus is a required course in any R1 colleges for the biomedical/bioengineering major.

Wondering how folks here think about the water down of across-board math pathway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was so disappointed in the last BOE meeting. The Board is eating it up -- there is no way they will not approve.

They seemed stunned into silence- overwhelmed, like the rest of us- 100 slides!

The BOE needs the materials 10 days ahead so they can digest it. I’m assuming of course, that they are not getting much advanced notice with this…iterative process…

On one hand, I believe this is exactly MCPS' strategy to flood BOE with information (and the calendar presentation took more than 30 mins for just get an approval to proceed with collecting public votes...); on the other hand, the staffing and transportation budgets remain roughly unchanged from the August presentation, so BOE has long enough time to think about issues, especially given a plethora of sharp and right-on-spot questions raised two weeks ago in the county council meeting (Laura Stewart was there!) Yet they are "pleased" this round that MCPS has provided the same thing from 2 months ago (for budget).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will stop if there is threat of many lawsuits.

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"?

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."

Sorry, champ. Agencies’ internal regulations don’t create rights for other people. If this is the best you can do, spend your money on private school instead of a lawsuit.

Education departments shouldn't have to follow their own regulations? Interesting position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read the new presentation slides more closely, and found out that integrated math 1 (IM1; covering Algebra 1 and a little bit of geometry) is assumed for all programs, except for IB and STEM. For IB, they are allowed to move up, and for STEM, they start with IM2 (covering some geometry and Algebra 2). Right now SMCS begins with Algebra 2 for the slowest path and function for the fastest path. For RMIB, I believe they have a similar slow and fast path beginning levels.

So in the new regional model, the fastest math pathway would be: IM2 -> PreCalc -> Calc AB -> Calc BC/AP Stat. This is one year slower than the fastest math pathway provided right now at MCPS:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/schools/high-schools/k-q/poolesvillehs/uploadedfiles/departments/math/mathpathways.pdf

For biomedical science program (Page 43), the math pathway skips the entire preCalc and Calc, but only offers AP Stat for junior and senior years. This makes me doubt if anyone in the design team really has any biomedical background. Calculus is a required course in any R1 colleges for the biomedical/bioengineering major.

Wondering how folks here think about the water down of across-board math pathway.

All these curriculum pathways are copied and pasted from MSDE documents. No one at MCPS even thought to compare them with programs like Blair and Wheaton.

https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/CTE/standards/HHS_Biomedical_Science-A.pdf

https://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Documents/CTE/standards/HHS_Certified_Clinical_Medical_Assistant-A.pdf