Please be aware of what is about to go away:

[Anonymous]

I’m just curious how popular arts at Northwood would be if it’s test in. Generally the higher preforming students will want higher level classes. Will they have that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

I have no idea either, but I suspect (and really worried about) that MCPS will fold the secondary program plan into their suggested boundary change option to BOE, just like the Big Beautiful Bill where there's no place to say no to part of the plan.

The programs vote is supposed to be in December and the boundary study vote is supposed to be in March so they wouldn't be combined unless that changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also there is no reason why you can't move to the regional model and still keep consortia. The new regions could be structured as consortia too. The last time the transportation budget for the consortia was estimated it was quite small, just a tiny drop in the bucket of MCPS's total budget, and the added cost would be even less now since they'll already be paying to run buses all across each region for the regional programs anyway.

In no way do I want to live in a consortium. I like the way they are doing it -- people go to their home school unless they want a speciality program. I want to know that my neighbors who choose public will be at our school--and that they kids we went to middle school will be, too--unless they make the choice to apply and then get into a magnet.

In a consortium you can still be guaranteed your home school. So are you saying you don't want.a consortium because you want to force your neighbors' kids into the same school your kids are going to, whether they want to or not? Lovely of you (And still doesn't even work because all your kid's middle school friends could still choose to go to a regional program at a different school anyway. So it has all the downsides of a consortia model without the benefits.)

Correct. I want my kids to go to a neighborhood school.

I feel the same way, and I'm a parent of a child who goes to a middle school magnet nad whose home school is Paint Branch. The commute is unbearable and is affecting my child's social life/activities/etc, in a negative way (though she loves going to the magnet). Make the neighborhood schools better and stop the brain-drain.

This. I wish they would do something about middle and elementary. It’s like MCPS only listens to the people who have a positive experience with the magnets, and they ignore all the negative impacts on the local schools from taking kids out of those schools. Why should my kid lose a robust peer cohort at the local school because other kids won a lottery to get into a magnet and my equally qualified kid did not? Plus all the social impacts. Just offer the same classes at the neighborhood school! At all levels from elementary to high school! It's not that hard of a concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

If they are removing the other arts, they could easily create more slots in the VAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also there is no reason why you can't move to the regional model and still keep consortia. The new regions could be structured as consortia too. The last time the transportation budget for the consortia was estimated it was quite small, just a tiny drop in the bucket of MCPS's total budget, and the added cost would be even less now since they'll already be paying to run buses all across each region for the regional programs anyway.

In no way do I want to live in a consortium. I like the way they are doing it -- people go to their home school unless they want a speciality program. I want to know that my neighbors who choose public will be at our school--and that they kids we went to middle school will be, too--unless they make the choice to apply and then get into a magnet.

In a consortium you can still be guaranteed your home school. So are you saying you don't want.a consortium because you want to force your neighbors' kids into the same school your kids are going to, whether they want to or not? Lovely of you (And still doesn't even work because all your kid's middle school friends could still choose to go to a regional program at a different school anyway. So it has all the downsides of a consortia model without the benefits.)

Correct. I want my kids to go to a neighborhood school.

I feel the same way, and I'm a parent of a child who goes to a middle school magnet nad whose home school is Paint Branch. The commute is unbearable and is affecting my child's social life/activities/etc, in a negative way (though she loves going to the magnet). Make the neighborhood schools better and stop the brain-drain.

This. I wish they would do something about middle and elementary. It’s like MCPS only listens to the people who have a positive experience with the magnets, and they ignore all the negative impacts on the local schools from taking kids out of those schools. Why should my kid lose a robust peer cohort at the local school because other kids won a lottery to get into a magnet and my equally qualified kid did not? Plus all the social impacts. Just offer the same classes at the neighborhood school! At all levels from elementary to high school! It's not that hard of a concept.

Agree, its been like this for many years. Your only option is to supplement at home yourself or with tutors/programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

There are other strong teachers so it would probably be ok, but the question to me is will Northwood have the academics to support some of the higher level students if its preformance based. You can easily get in two periods, come sophomore year, if you do health education in the summer and drop forign language after two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

If they are removing the other arts, they could easily create more slots in the VAC.

They could, although I think they’d need to bring in more teachers. And maybe create another studio space. Or they could start one additional program, with each serving half the county, to see how well it scales. But that’s not what they’re proposing.

Trying to quintuplicate what you have yet to duplicate does not seem well thought out, even if you were not simultaneously trying to create many new programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

There are other strong teachers so it would probably be ok, but the question to me is will Northwood have the academics to support some of the higher level students if its preformance based. You can easily get in two periods, come sophomore year, if you do health education in the summer and drop forign language after two years.

Yes, of course you can graduate. The options are:
No summer school and lose three core academic classes
One summer school course (health or tech) and lose two core academic classes
Two summer school courses (health and tech) and lose one core academic class.

All of which is fine if you want to go to art school, but if you’re not 100% sure (or not sure you’ll get in), it’s not ideal for a good student to drop a core academic course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

There are other strong teachers so it would probably be ok, but the question to me is will Northwood have the academics to support some of the higher level students if its preformance based. You can easily get in two periods, come sophomore year, if you do health education in the summer and drop forign language after two years.

Yes, of course you can graduate. The options are:
No summer school and lose three core academic classes
One summer school course (health or tech) and lose two core academic classes
Two summer school courses (health and tech) and lose one core academic class.

All of which is fine if you want to go to art school, but if you’re not 100% sure (or not sure you’ll get in), it’s not ideal for a good student to drop a core academic course.

Do tech in middle school if the school offers it. Drop foreign language after 10th.

Do health ed semester one summer before 9th, and the second one summer after 9th.

Although if you aren’t you going for an art major, this is probably correct in terms of college and classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the program analysis plan, here is what will be going away:

-Downcounty Consortium
-Northeast Consortium
-Any current countywide program that selects from the whole county such as: the Science, Math and Computer Science programs at Blair and Poolesville, the IM program at Richard Montgomery, the Visual Arts Program at Einstein, and Global Ecology at Poolesville.

People need to understand that these are now slated to go away. Current 8th graders can apply, and after that they’re over. You may agree or disagree with this change, but you need to know. See the link below for FAQs.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/

Can we try to keep our terminology clear so everyone is on the same page?

DCC and NEC would go away.

SMCS, RMIB, and VAC would still exist but as regional programs accepting kids from a smaller number of schools. That is absolutely a big change and should be acknowledged and talked about as such, but it is confusing and inaccurate to say they're "going away" in the same sense that DCC and NEC will go away.

Global Ecology is TBD. They will have something called "Global Ecology" within the Poolesville SMCS, but it's unclear whether it will be anything like Global Ecology as we know it or not.

I'd also add that while DCC and NEC are going away, they are being replaced by other consortia. The application/lottery process will not be identical to the DCC/NEC model, but that model always worked better in theory than in practice anyway. Under the new model, there will be either interest-based or criteria based models within six different consortia, and kids will have the option to apply/lottery into those.

+1 Since MCPS has said they will add slots to these programs, it's misleading to characterize them as "going away." They have said there will be more slots at closer options, which is a good thing as currently only 60ish kids go to Blair SMCS each year. What is about to "go away" is currently available for very students in MCPS, all of whom are chosen based upon a single MAP test data point and some grades.

I applaud the idea of creating more opportunity, but I’m afraid what this will create is less equitable opportunity, not more.

Take a countywide program like the VAC. Say it can somehow remain at its current level for the 1/6 of MCPS kid who are eligible.

Now take the visual arts kids at the other 5/6 of MCPS high schools. They have lost the opportunity to gain admission to a nationally-recognized program with 50 years of success. In exchange, they can trade 2 periods a day for 4 years (and thus the opportunity to take all 5 core classes all 4 years) for the chance at an unknown, untested program with no history of results. How is that fair to them?

If they are removing the other arts, they could easily create more slots in the VAC.

They could, although I think they’d need to bring in more teachers. And maybe create another studio space. Or they could start one additional program, with each serving half the county, to see how well it scales. But that’s not what they’re proposing.

Trying to quintuplicate what you have yet to duplicate does not seem well thought out, even if you were not simultaneously trying to create many new programs.

It would make sense to expand and do a second one but also expand the current one as well as other programs. If they are reducing the students they will drop other classes and have more space or move it to the portables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

They need the BOE approval but the BOE isn’t going to vote no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

They need the BOE approval but the BOE isn’t going to vote no.

Regardless of whether they actually vote no in the end, they certainly have the power to vote no. And to start talking now in ways that make Central Office nervous they will vote no unless there is real community engagement/feedback and real details on costs and logistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

They need the BOE approval but the BOE isn’t going to vote no.

Regardless of whether they actually vote no in the end, they certainly have the power to vote no. And to start talking now in ways that make Central Office nervous they will vote no unless there is real community engagement/feedback and real details on costs and logistics.

Have they ever voted a no? It’s doubtful they will go against MCPS.