Upcoming in-person boundary study & regional model "engagement session": how to engage?

[Anonymous]

In the media center, a central office rep stated that each region will need about $1M to implement these special programs... where did they get that number? What does it cost to implement Blair, RM, and Poolesville programs??

There is zero transparency and data being shared - shame on MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the "feedback room" for 40 minutes, and there was at least a little back and forth, in the form of questions that were answered, e.g., why are there 6 regions and not 5, 4, or 3? (A: it is the best way to divide up the county logistically and provide sufficient access); how do you plan to keep the programs high-quality? (A: we will take what works well in existing programs, learn from it, etc); what do the current magnet coordinators think of all this? (A: it's a mixed bag, some are supportive and some have questions, etc); will you grandfather in current younger siblings in the DCC and provide a sibling link? (A: good suggestion, noted); will criteria-based programs have a lottery component? (A: blank stare - then another parent reports that Jeannie just told her in the other room that no, it will not). There were others - perhaps someone else can add.

I thought they were less aggressive than they could have been, and seemed at least open to hearing from people. That said, I don't think anyone walked away thinking that anything other than some small tweaks will be made.

I was also in the feedback room. A couple people mentioned the fact that the only clusters whose boundaries were untouched were the wealthiest and whitest in the county--blank stares and "we hear that feedback." When asked whether there would be a third set of boundary proposals, Essie said there would be to account for SSIMS and Crown now being slated to be holding schools, but NOT making other changes (which contradicts other sessions where MCPS said it was an iterative process where they would incorporate feedback from the second round of options).

Someone asked how they determined which programs would go to which schools in each region, noting that the program proposal places the humanities criteria-based program in the wealthiest/whitest schools in each cluster (i.e., Whitman). Nicky gave a non-answer about building on existing strengths, etc., etc. Oddly, no one asked why Northwood's only proposed criteria-based program in a large, brand-new school is dance.

A teacher from Einstein made the excellent point that for all the talk of "equity," these proposals seem to do the opposite by focusing on equality at the expense of the DCC schools. She pointedly asked whether Einstein will get additional counselors and resources given that their FARMs rate will be increasing under the new boundary proposals--no answer.

A Blair SMCS parent grilled Essie/Nicky about how MCPS plans to replicate that program when the Poolesville program draws from 9 (vs. Blair's 16) schools and can't attract the same quality of applicants as Blair--and the proposed program would be drawing from far fewer schools per region.

There were other questions too, but I agree with the above poster that some people gobbled up time by asking overly specific questions.

Thanks so much for this detailed answer-- super-helpful.

On the bolded point, this lines up with what Jeannie Franklin said in the other room when asked how they considered equity and the differential impact on high-SES vs low-SES schools of having an academic magnet or not/bringing in vs losing dozens of high-achieving kids per grade. She straight-out said that they did not consider equity in placing programs, and instead based the placement of programs on what "assets" the various schools already had in place.

It was frankly shocking to me-- I assumed they would have some sort of canned answer about how this placement really does improve equity for some complicated reasons that don't hold water but sound good on the surface-- but the fact that they didn't consider it at all and seemed surprised to be asked was just stunning.

It's also ridiculous because people have brought this up to them and they have literally just ignored the question. So if you haven't thought about racial equity, it's because you intentionally chose not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the media center, a central office rep stated that each region will need about $1M to implement these special programs... where did they get that number? What does it cost to implement Blair, RM, and Poolesville programs??

There is zero transparency and data being shared - shame on MCPS.

In the 2016 METIS report, 4 programs (two SMCS + Wheaton Engineering + RMIB) = $1.5 million staffing costs. I forgot about transportation cost but you can check the report. That's in 2016 dollars, so it's about $2 million for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

This exactly. And to do that, you need to have cohorted classes. Especially in high poverty schools, you can't put everyone into "honors." It's insane to me that MCPS thinks it would be "inequitable" to offer multiple levels of English 9 at Northwood or Einstein, but it's NOT inequitable to just allow the high-performing students who have parents who can drive them transfer to BCC or Whitman.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to everyone reporting in detail about the Blair session. Lot's to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the media center, a central office rep stated that each region will need about $1M to implement these special programs... where did they get that number? What does it cost to implement Blair, RM, and Poolesville programs??

There is zero transparency and data being shared - shame on MCPS.

It is from slides 87-89 here (not exact because those are year-one costs but it gives you an idea of their plans): https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

The only staff costs covered are one program coordinator per school that covers all coordinators at a school-- no additional teachers (unlike Blair/Poolesville/etc.). Transportation costs are based on HS-to-HS transportation (parents drive kids to the HS to catch the bus.). If either of these were improved the costs would be significantly higher.

[Anonymous]

Still zero confirmation on if the Watkins Mill session happened. So I'm guessing it didn't? Can anyone get MCPS to confirm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone share the link from the QR code where they said folks could give feedback? Is it one of the old forms or something new? I forgot to scan it.

Is this the one? To fill out the "MCPS Program Analysis Presentation" form, you will need to sign in. Then it asks:

1.How do you see this benefiting your child's experience in MCPS? (um, no)
2. What's clear?
3. What is unclear?
4. What you would like to know more about?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc1E6bFxQNo8F4_OdQiE3t7kn47l28lG0IxXZtbF7xbFnZF1Q/viewform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

This exactly. And to do that, you need to have cohorted classes. Especially in high poverty schools, you can't put everyone into "honors." It's insane to me that MCPS thinks it would be "inequitable" to offer multiple levels of English 9 at Northwood or Einstein, but it's NOT inequitable to just allow the high-performing students who have parents who can drive them transfer to BCC or Whitman.

Yes, especially because even though they're saying they'd increase participation in these programs from 10% currently to 20%, the math makes no sense and will still exclude eligible students. *What about the other 80%????*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone share the link from the QR code where they said folks could give feedback? Is it one of the old forms or something new? I forgot to scan it.

Is this the one? To fill out the "MCPS Program Analysis Presentation" form, you will need to sign in. Then it asks:

1.How do you see this benefiting your child's experience in MCPS? (um, no)
2. What's clear?
3. What is unclear?
4. What you would like to know more about?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc1E6bFxQNo8F4_OdQiE3t7kn47l28lG0IxXZtbF7xbFnZF1Q/viewform

This is the same "ask a question" form on their website months ago, a small button embedded in the banner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the media center, a central office rep stated that each region will need about $1M to implement these special programs... where did they get that number? What does it cost to implement Blair, RM, and Poolesville programs??

There is zero transparency and data being shared - shame on MCPS.

Ore central office staff. They aren’t adding teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

This exactly. And to do that, you need to have cohorted classes. Especially in high poverty schools, you can't put everyone into "honors." It's insane to me that MCPS thinks it would be "inequitable" to offer multiple levels of English 9 at Northwood or Einstein, but it's NOT inequitable to just allow the high-performing students who have parents who can drive them transfer to BCC or Whitman.

It’s only inequitable at the none schools. There are so few slots that they will lose more students due to the lack of offerings.

The Mccpta people barely do anything. They are in it for their own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

This exactly. And to do that, you need to have cohorted classes. Especially in high poverty schools, you can't put everyone into "honors." It's insane to me that MCPS thinks it would be "inequitable" to offer multiple levels of English 9 at Northwood or Einstein, but it's NOT inequitable to just allow the high-performing students who have parents who can drive them transfer to BCC or Whitman.

It’s only inequitable at the none schools. There are so few slots that they will lose more students due to the lack of offerings.

The Mccpta people barely do anything. They are in it for their own kids.

And, yes what happens is our kids end up in regular classes as there is no ap or real honors and the classes are basic at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

This exactly. And to do that, you need to have cohorted classes. Especially in high poverty schools, you can't put everyone into "honors." It's insane to me that MCPS thinks it would be "inequitable" to offer multiple levels of English 9 at Northwood or Einstein, but it's NOT inequitable to just allow the high-performing students who have parents who can drive them transfer to BCC or Whitman.

Yes, especially because even though they're saying they'd increase participation in these programs from 10% currently to 20%, the math makes no sense and will still exclude eligible students. *What about the other 80%????*

I think we're losing the plot if we're saying that 20% of high school students in our very large system have needs so specialized that they can't be met at their home high schools. You don't need a "major" in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in the room too and there was a comment made about improving the core curriculum to reduce dependence on these special programs because they end up being the only chance for academic rigor and that's part of the problem with demand for these special programs. MCCPTA has been saying the secondary curricula have been lacking for years with no willingness on CO part to address the problem, and so much of the talent could stay at local schools if they upgrade the current curricula for these classes (like English) that the special program kids also have to take anyway.

This exactly. And to do that, you need to have cohorted classes. Especially in high poverty schools, you can't put everyone into "honors." It's insane to me that MCPS thinks it would be "inequitable" to offer multiple levels of English 9 at Northwood or Einstein, but it's NOT inequitable to just allow the high-performing students who have parents who can drive them transfer to BCC or Whitman.

It’s only inequitable at the none schools. There are so few slots that they will lose more students due to the lack of offerings.

The Mccpta people barely do anything. They are in it for their own kids.

And, yes what happens is our kids end up in regular classes as there is no ap or real honors and the classes are basic at best.

Well there is AP. Or do you mean for the schools that have an IB focus and therefore prioritize IB over AP classes?