Program Analysis Vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

That’s a mystery to me too, even assuming the equal swap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

That’s a mystery to me too, even assuming the equal swap.

It's very poorly thought out. Based on the limited data they shared, they are assuming similar numbers of kids leaving each school. This is despite the fact that historically some schools have a small percentage of kids leave and some have a lot leave. They also did not consider that some high schools have a lot more students than others. They did not survey families to get a sense of interest level in proposed programs either. I've asked about this and been told basically "we'll figure it out." I suggested there is no reason to link the boundary changes and regional model if they have no sense of numbers anyway, but I was told the plans are "inextricably linked."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

That’s a mystery to me too, even assuming the equal swap.

It's very poorly thought out. Based on the limited data they shared, they are assuming similar numbers of kids leaving each school. This is despite the fact that historically some schools have a small percentage of kids leave and some have a lot leave. They also did not consider that some high schools have a lot more students than others. They did not survey families to get a sense of interest level in proposed programs either. I've asked about this and been told basically "we'll figure it out." I suggested there is no reason to link the boundary changes and regional model if they have no sense of numbers anyway, but I was told the plans are "inextricably linked."

It’s also mind boggling that the vast majority of families agree with you and yet this is being rammed through in spite of legitimate concerns.

[Anonymous]

I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program)

Because their approach was haphazard rather than methodical. They didn’t have the skill it time needed to do it well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

That’s a mystery to me too, even assuming the equal swap.

It's very poorly thought out. Based on the limited data they shared, they are assuming similar numbers of kids leaving each school. This is despite the fact that historically some schools have a small percentage of kids leave and some have a lot leave. They also did not consider that some high schools have a lot more students than others. They did not survey families to get a sense of interest level in proposed programs either. I've asked about this and been told basically "we'll figure it out." I suggested there is no reason to link the boundary changes and regional model if they have no sense of numbers anyway, but I was told the plans are "inextricably linked."

It’s also mind boggling that the vast majority of families agree with you and yet this is being rammed through in spite of legitimate concerns.

The vast majority of families don't really understand the proposal and have gone along with "more programs closer to home sounds good ."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

That’s a mystery to me too, even assuming the equal swap.

It's very poorly thought out. Based on the limited data they shared, they are assuming similar numbers of kids leaving each school. This is despite the fact that historically some schools have a small percentage of kids leave and some have a lot leave. They also did not consider that some high schools have a lot more students than others. They did not survey families to get a sense of interest level in proposed programs either. I've asked about this and been told basically "we'll figure it out." I suggested there is no reason to link the boundary changes and regional model if they have no sense of numbers anyway, but I was told the plans are "inextricably linked."

This is the part where they totally missed the mark. They are so concerned about "equity" that they have completely allowed common sense to go out the window.

Some programs will be more popular than others, and in specific schools, while others won't be as popular. That will lead to unequal numbers of students leaving/coming in, and schools like RM could end up still being over capacity, which is the #1 thing this whole boundary change is supposed to address.

What a cluster F*, pun intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

That’s a mystery to me too, even assuming the equal swap.

It's very poorly thought out. Based on the limited data they shared, they are assuming similar numbers of kids leaving each school. This is despite the fact that historically some schools have a small percentage of kids leave and some have a lot leave. They also did not consider that some high schools have a lot more students than others. They did not survey families to get a sense of interest level in proposed programs either. I've asked about this and been told basically "we'll figure it out." I suggested there is no reason to link the boundary changes and regional model if they have no sense of numbers anyway, but I was told the plans are "inextricably linked."

This is the part where they totally missed the mark. They are so concerned about "equity" that they have completely allowed common sense to go out the window.

Some programs will be more popular than others, and in specific schools, while others won't be as popular. That will lead to unequal numbers of students leaving/coming in, and schools like RM could end up still being over capacity, which is the #1 thing this whole boundary change is supposed to address.

What a cluster F*, pun intended.

I'm really tired of people blaming "equity" for MCPS's poor decisions. Equity is just a word they use to justify what they want to do. It doesn't mean anything to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they haven’t really done the work to assess demand for all these new programs up front, have they said what they’ll do if there’s insufficient interest to fill programs in a region? Seems like they could either:
- end the program in that region, which would go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- offer interested kids the option to attend the program in another region (presumably without transportation), which would again go against the stated goal of equal opportunities for all students
- keep the program with small class sizes, thus increasing class sizes in non-program classes

I'm worried that the demand will not be equal, so some schools will remain over capacity.

The premise of the new boundaries is based on the regional models. It seems to me that they are assuming equal swap of the number of students within a given school, but I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

For example: in Option H, RMHS is under capacity without any boundary changes. How in the world did they come up with the capacity number?

It's the in-boundary projected enrolling population, with some unknown adjustment for then-presumed attrition to Poolesville (assumes +600, but presumably from it's current magnet reach) and Seneca Valley (+500). So not accounting for anything analogous to the current additional population from out-of-catchment RMIB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

+1 they do not have anything that remotely resembles an equity mindset

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

There is making use of existing resources and then there is just taking what exist and giving it a new name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

+1 they do not have anything that remotely resembles an equity mindset

They literally admitted that they did not consider equity at all in deciding which programs should be placed at which schools, and Jeannie Franklin honestly seemed surprised and confused at the suggestion that they should have considered it. (She's also the genius that thinks that you need to give kids from W schools a leg up in getting into magnets located at their local school, because someone once told her "local setasides are good" and she either can't or isn't willing to think it through any more deeply than that.)

So it's unsurprising that the regional programs are going to be a huge step backwards for equity, since MCPS is refusing to even think about it in their plan (despite throwing the word around a lot.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

The board has been asking for data since last summer and won't receive it until March, when they are scheduled to vote. So, they may vote to delay until they have an opportunity to consider data from the school district on the programs/regions/boundaries.

Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

The board has been asking for data since last summer and won't receive it until March, when they are scheduled to vote. So, they may vote to delay until they have an opportunity to consider data from the school district on the programs/regions/boundaries.

Crazy.

This happened on Julie Yang's watch as BOE president with her martinet limitation of questions.