Blind item: Regional criteria "magnets" will be lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has been lying since October.
The Program Deign Team (who MCPS "deigns" to share their designs to) was notified that the criteria programs will be lottery based.

The non-lottery version, announced after parent resistance in October, was a lie to get parents off MCPS's back

Equity and Opportunity in MCPS are cancelled.

Ironically, MCPS middle scholers are studying Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" this week.

This is horrible! What's the source of this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has been lying since October.
The Program Deign Team (who MCPS "deigns" to share their designs to) was notified that the criteria programs will be lottery based.

The non-lottery version, announced after parent resistance in October, was a lie to get parents off MCPS's back

Equity and Opportunity in MCPS are cancelled.

Ironically, MCPS middle schoolers are studying Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" this week.

Was this announced in the design team meeting or do you just have this information pre-open announcement? How do you know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Thank you, kind soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

Julie Yang and Karla Silvestre are running, respectively, for district 1 and at-large seats on the county council. If they vote for this catastrophically bad regional plan, please vote for someone else for their county council seats. They do not deserve our support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Don't forget Niki Porter, who is their lead, tasked with setting the direction for and making decisions about the options that get raised to Taylor. This is like Adnan Mamoon for boundaries -- Andrea Swiatocha has the role similar to Jeannie as the lackey handling all the detail. Unfortunately, those who know have been dreading this kind of thing ever since she was elevated to CAO.

That was one of Taylor's real missteps as he relied in his appointments too heavily on preserving institutional knowledge, choosing from those steeped in the mire that MCPS had become. Over the years of her varying leadership roles, Porter (prior surname Hazel) has been a main driver of shifting support/resources/focus away from higher-end academic opportunities -- a terribly short-sighted approach to equity, and one that ultimately fails its own intended beneficiaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

Julie Yang and Karla Silvestre are running, respectively, for district 1 and at-large seats on the county council. If they vote for this catastrophically bad regional plan, please vote for someone else for their county council seats. They do not deserve our support.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Don't forget Niki Porter, who is their lead, tasked with setting the direction for and making decisions about the options that get raised to Taylor. This is like Adnan Mamoon for boundaries -- Andrea Swiatocha has the role similar to Jeannie as the lackey handling all the detail. Unfortunately, those who know have been dreading this kind of thing ever since she was elevated to CAO.

That was one of Taylor's real missteps as he relied in his appointments too heavily on preserving institutional knowledge, choosing from those steeped in the mire that MCPS had become. Over the years of her varying leadership roles, Porter (prior surname Hazel) has been a main driver of shifting support/resources/focus away from higher-end academic opportunities -- a terribly short-sighted approach to equity, and one that ultimately fails its own intended beneficiaries.

Is there a report from MCPS shared accountability office or something similar that shows the multi-year trend MCPS student performance on standard tests that break-down by races or farm rate? I'm interested to learn if certain race is dropping more rapidly than the rest or they equally decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

What are we asking? Are criteria based programs based on lottery? Can someone share the specific language/words we should use?

[Anonymous]

I'm not seeing the issue. The only issue I see is the schools with limited AP and advanced classes are going to be a problem if they don't provide those classes and families will have to leave MCPS - go private, move, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

Julie Yang and Karla Silvestre are running, respectively, for district 1 and at-large seats on the county council. If they vote for this catastrophically bad regional plan, please vote for someone else for their county council seats. They do not deserve our support.

They rubber stamp everything.