Parents of current 7th graders - what do you think about the 6 regional magnets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So … every time a poster does not use quote feature or disagrees and/or provides evidence that they have been sharing false information on this platform, someone on here just claims that they are a “staffer” and dismisses what is stated instead of engaging in dialogue?

Then, the response to all of that is a “song” reiterating information we all now know to be false with someone offering coffee? That is not productive conversation.

Looks like if these folks were on the design team, MCPS would never be able to have any dialogue. If folks on the design team felt that they were silenced, why not share what you were trying to convey here?

DP. That poster unable to use the quote function does sound like s/he could be ONE individual from Central Office. I thought that was a reasonable guess.

This response - attacking volunteers from the design team and not itself being substantive sounds just like an MCPS employee. Or at least a friend of MCPS. Maybe even paid by MCPS.

I personally liked the song. Creative, captured the essence of what many in the community (outside of MCPS Central Office and BOE) are feeling, grieving that MCPS/BOE is so tone deaf to the essence of it, stuck in its bubble. MCPS and BOE are now only defensive, not engaging or listening for understanding, but to warp feedback to fit their narrative. Could the song be AI generated? Maybe. Could it be someone with a creative bent? Sure.

[Anonymous]

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Correct -- you could not apply to a program outside your region.

[Anonymous]

Thanks- I thought the whole point was to make everything available across the county?

That's kind of facetious. I've lived here long enough to know better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am parent from WJ region. I will not send my children to Kennedy and most likely neither to Wheaton. They will stay at WJ.

Same here. We actually have specific reasons for wanting IB over AP and my son thrived in RMIB. But we will not even consider sending my daughter elsewhere given the options in region 3. We will stick to our home school WJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how millennials idea of parenting is gossiping about how others aren’t doing enough for their kids while throwing in a few disingenuous virtue signals.

The schools will be the same + or - a percent, individual schools will perform and struggle differently based on their unique challenges and life will go on. Your kid will sink or swim depending on how well you parent.

I am one of the critics and I'n not just criticizing from the sidelines, I've actually invested a ton of time and effort into this process. I'm actually pretty furious about how MCPS sucked me into spending dozens of hours of my time on their sham "design team" process in the spring, at significant personal inconvenience, because I believed in the principles behind what they said they were doing and naively trusted that they would eventually get to the big questions and engage with us to come up with strong proposals. Instead they wasted our time week after week on hours and hours of unimportant conversations and then slowed down and stopped meeting with us when they started getting into the real issues and people weren't just saying "your plans are great." If our involvement was just supposed to be a charade anyway, then they at least should have kept it to a handful of short meetings.

+1

Last week, a volunteer on the design team emailed the group asking when the next meeting would be, with a list of topics to address about implementation. A central office staffer replied saying no one is supposed to used that email group for substantive discussion, just confirmations of meeting times and zoom links.

DP. This happened once before when someone wrote with a summary of concerns about the process. They are definitely trying to prevent design team members from coordinating. We are more effective when we do so.

They also didn’t say there would be future meetings. In the last presentation to the BoE they teased big changes to middle schools. The design team has never discussed middle school and it doesn’t look like they plan to bring us back for that.

In the actual BOE meeting Nikki described what was upcoming for MS, and noted that it was being driven by MSDE math changes and Blueprint requirements. Nothing to do with program analysis because they wanted to get HS correct before moving into MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Correct -- you could not apply to a program outside your region.

And this just proves that the garbage from MCPS about all schools having equal access is just BS. If we follow the money trail to see who has donated to the candidates, you will get your answers.

MCPS is wasting our tax dollars on this fiasco, proposing Crown be a holding school and so on.

They need to re-evaluate since they have no solid plan, and if they really cared about the kids, postpone this or at the very least just expand the existing magnets in just 2 or 3 more schools, see how it goes, learn rom mistakes and then go county wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Correct -- you could not apply to a program outside your region.

And this just proves that the garbage from MCPS about all schools having equal access is just BS. If we follow the money trail to see who has donated to the candidates, you will get your answers.

MCPS is wasting our tax dollars on this fiasco, proposing Crown be a holding school and so on.

They need to re-evaluate since they have no solid plan, and if they really cared about the kids, postpone this or at the very least just expand the existing magnets in just 2 or 3 more schools, see how it goes, learn rom mistakes and then go county wide.

I don't have the time to look up donors-- can you share what you found?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So … every time a poster does not use quote feature or disagrees and/or provides evidence that they have been sharing false information on this platform, someone on here just claims that they are a “staffer” and dismisses what is stated instead of engaging in dialogue?

Then, the response to all of that is a “song” reiterating information we all now know to be false with someone offering coffee? That is not productive conversation.

Looks like if these folks were on the design team, MCPS would never be able to have any dialogue. If folks on the design team felt that they were silenced, why not share what you were trying to convey here?

The concerns that the design team brought up have been well-covered on DCUM. We know no more than anyone else at this point. That creating greater access to high-quality programming sounds good, but that central office isn't putting in the work to ensure that the programming is actually high quality -- they are using a slipshod approach without doing the meaningful analysis needed to create strong programs. Lots of members of the design team brought up these concerns early and rather than trying to address them, central office moved it forward without changes. Now, central office is facing blowback from many community members--blowback that could have been mitigated if they had actually worked with the design team to make changes to the plan to address the concerns, which would have taken time and effort to create a solid plan.

MCPS has a team of teachers they are consulting with and are currently refining the details now.

It sounds like a timeline issue, like some members of the design team expected a complete prototype during the design phase, but that’s not what “design” entails. It is simply the start of an iterative process of continual monitoring and progress.

Design -> Build -> Test (the prototype) -> Improve

We know that we can reduce inefficiency by streamlining processes, improving productivity, and minimizing human error (as was done when GM introduced automation) and it appears that MCPS is trying to improve access using a similar system-wide approach.

So based on one of the overarching goals of the program analysis - to reverse the inefficiencies caused by piecemeal implementation - demanding that MCPS add only a few programs at a time and patch on more later would not make sense either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So … every time a poster does not use quote feature or disagrees and/or provides evidence that they have been sharing false information on this platform, someone on here just claims that they are a “staffer” and dismisses what is stated instead of engaging in dialogue?

Then, the response to all of that is a “song” reiterating information we all now know to be false with someone offering coffee? That is not productive conversation.

Looks like if these folks were on the design team, MCPS would never be able to have any dialogue. If folks on the design team felt that they were silenced, why not share what you were trying to convey here?

DP. That poster unable to use the quote function does sound like s/he could be ONE individual from Central Office. I thought that was a reasonable guess.

This response - attacking volunteers from the design team and not itself being substantive sounds just like an MCPS employee. Or at least a friend of MCPS. Maybe even paid by MCPS.

I personally liked the song. Creative, captured the essence of what many in the community (outside of MCPS Central Office and BOE) are feeling, grieving that MCPS/BOE is so tone deaf to the essence of it, stuck in its bubble. MCPS and BOE are now only defensive, not engaging or listening for understanding, but to warp feedback to fit their narrative. Could the song be AI generated? Maybe. Could it be someone with a creative bent? Sure.

Hard pass on MCPS being “tone-deaf”. Many in the community wanted it implemented in 2026 school year for more students to have access. MCPS has already showed flexibility by phasing out the current program and allowing anyone already in a program to continue even though it could financially threaten the new rollout of programs. They showed even further flexibility by allowing current eighth graders to continue at the expense of other students being denied opportunities.

Certain groups have benefited from the programs as they are, so all they are asking for is delay with no mention of empathy for others’ grief as they keep waiting (since at least 2016 or possibly even longer than that - from when Taylor himself attended MCPS).

Food lines stretch out longer and include MCPS graduates with bachelors and masters degrees, stuck with student loans they can’t possibly pay back. Meanwhile corporations here in the county are desperate for the right college graduates and have called MCPS historically “difficult to work with”. Our community needs these changes even if they are not a picture perfect rollout that improves the lives of those who’ve always benefitted. The point is *expanding access*, and not necessarily putting the already fortunate at an even greater advantage.

For me, this version of ‘advocacy’ comes across as bellicose and insidious (and possibly even cruel) - like no amount of flexibility from MCPS will *ever* be enough. More students having access appears to be none of your concern because there isn’t even an attempt to find alternate resources for these students because for the vast majority of the complainers it’s literally “just a delay”. They can’t see or feel the pain they are forcing on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Correct -- you could not apply to a program outside your region.

And this just proves that the garbage from MCPS about all schools having equal access is just BS. If we follow the money trail to see who has donated to the candidates, you will get your answers.

MCPS is wasting our tax dollars on this fiasco, proposing Crown be a holding school and so on.

They need to re-evaluate since they have no solid plan, and if they really cared about the kids, postpone this or at the very least just expand the existing magnets in just 2 or 3 more schools, see how it goes, learn rom mistakes and then go county wide.

Having a holding school makes sense as many schools need repairs and replacement.

But, of course there is more to this. They’ve never listened to anyone, do what they want with no transparency or accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did MCPS provide any compensation to the design team members?

No, we were all volunteers. There were over 70 members at the beginning, a combination of parents and teachers. Lots of people with great perspectives and experience within MCPS. Participation dropped off over time. Meetings became all about central office telling us what they planned to do and accepting very little input.

At the last meeting there were maybe 25 volunteers, most of whom were parents (I assume staff prioritized work over a futile volunteer effort, which is entirely appropriate and understandable). There were more than a dozen central office staff on that call, and they did most of the talking.

Staff cannot speak up against the plan or they risk being fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So … every time a poster does not use quote feature or disagrees and/or provides evidence that they have been sharing false information on this platform, someone on here just claims that they are a “staffer” and dismisses what is stated instead of engaging in dialogue?

Then, the response to all of that is a “song” reiterating information we all now know to be false with someone offering coffee? That is not productive conversation.

Looks like if these folks were on the design team, MCPS would never be able to have any dialogue. If folks on the design team felt that they were silenced, why not share what you were trying to convey here?

DP. That poster unable to use the quote function does sound like s/he could be ONE individual from Central Office. I thought that was a reasonable guess.

This response - attacking volunteers from the design team and not itself being substantive sounds just like an MCPS employee. Or at least a friend of MCPS. Maybe even paid by MCPS.

I personally liked the song. Creative, captured the essence of what many in the community (outside of MCPS Central Office and BOE) are feeling, grieving that MCPS/BOE is so tone deaf to the essence of it, stuck in its bubble. MCPS and BOE are now only defensive, not engaging or listening for understanding, but to warp feedback to fit their narrative. Could the song be AI generated? Maybe. Could it be someone with a creative bent? Sure.

Hard pass on MCPS being “tone-deaf”. Many in the community wanted it implemented in 2026 school year for more students to have access. MCPS has already showed flexibility by phasing out the current program and allowing anyone already in a program to continue even though it could financially threaten the new rollout of programs. They showed even further flexibility by allowing current eighth graders to continue at the expense of other students being denied opportunities.

Certain groups have benefited from the programs as they are, so all they are asking for is delay with no mention of empathy for others’ grief as they keep waiting (since at least 2016 or possibly even longer than that - from when Taylor himself attended MCPS).

Food lines stretch out longer and include MCPS graduates with bachelors and masters degrees, stuck with student loans they can’t possibly pay back. Meanwhile corporations here in the county are desperate for the right college graduates and have called MCPS historically “difficult to work with”. Our community needs these changes even if they are not a picture perfect rollout that improves the lives of those who’ve always benefitted. The point is *expanding access*, and not necessarily putting the already fortunate at an even greater advantage.

For me, this version of ‘advocacy’ comes across as bellicose and insidious (and possibly even cruel) - like no amount of flexibility from MCPS will *ever* be enough. More students having access appears to be none of your concern because there isn’t even an attempt to find alternate resources for these students because for the vast majority of the complainers it’s literally “just a delay”. They can’t see or feel the pain they are forcing on others.

What do student loans have to with MCPS? That is a student and parents choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".