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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Do you have a source that shows it's guaranteed? Mcps has made an awful lot of "guarantees" in my 25 years as a teacher then parent here. The slide deck referenced here clearly shows disparities in the programs offered- Global, SMACS, and CAP to name a few.

+1 Just to name two examples:

1) When MCPS changed the system for MS magnet admissions, prioritizing kids who would otherwise have no peer cohort, they promised that magnet level programs would still be available to highly able students in their home schools and that kids who were qualified for the magnets would be cohorted together.

That promise lasted less than a year. Without standardization or accountability, schools immediately dropped cohorting, either refusing to offer AIM or HIGH or offering it to all students with zero differentiation. Essentially, it became "Honors for All" and the curriculum was dismantled. I still have the document where MCPS promised my kid a magnet-level education that never materialized.

2) MCPS has been all over the place with CAP during this discussion. First they said no changes given that CAP was a Blair program before it was an MCPS program. Then they said interest-based only (no criteria), and now they may or may not be back to criteria-based. At no point was this discussed with CAP teachers, administrators, students, or parents.

1) is absolutely true

Right. Even if we assume the best possible motivations (incompetence over malevolence), we are still left with a situation in which we have seen "guarantees" before and they did not materialize. In fact, they never even got started in most cases. You cannot "fact check" your way out of a situation in which the public has been lied to again and again. You first have to build trust.

[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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

I give you credit for trying, even giving the appearance of sources, but two main flaws:
1) Your argument is largely about CTE programs. But MCPS is messing with well-established and high-performing magnet programs, which are NOT CTE programs. So you're not comparing apples-to-apples. Unfortunately, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

2) Citing "BoardDocs" too many times undermines your arguments, because BoardDocs info comes from MCPS.

If you really wanted to expand CTE programs, very few would object. But trying to encompass the countrywide/up/downcounty magnets as similar to CTE is a mistake. They also target different student populations, but I guess you didn't think about that.

[Anonymous]

I see Jeannie Franklin has entered the room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

[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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

There are definitely key questions missing from your list, most of the "answers" provided don't really answer the questions, and some of the answers include falsehoods. What's your game here? Do you really believe this answers the questions and concerns, or are you just testing out your latest comms strategy here before rolling it out more broadly?

Come on, CO staffers. You are taking something that could be really great for MCPS and turning it into something that will be mediocre at best and terrible at worst (especially for poorer kids and schools, while pretending this is about equity), purely due to your speed and hubris (unwillingness to genuinely seek out and consider feedback from others.) Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

I didn't even read this whole thing after I saw the lies in the very first few answers... could tell this would all be BS (maybe even AI-written BS?) You may be able to fool the Board and the uninformed public but you can't fool those of us who have been paying attention.

Also, you missed several questions, including but not limited to "Why didn't MCPS consider equity in program placement and why are they benefiting rich schools over poorer schools in the placement of academic programs?"' and "How can MCPS pretend this proposal is equitable when they won't even guarantee neighborhood bus stops for the program buses?" and "Why is MCPS lying in their presentations to the Board if this is really so great?"

Thank you, PP, for adding your concerns and feedback. Please continue to brainstorm any and all issues you have with the program rollout or even the sources listed if you question them.

Thank you again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

There are definitely key questions missing from your list, most of the "answers" provided don't really answer the questions, and some of the answers include falsehoods. What's your game here? Do you really believe this answers the questions and concerns, or are you just testing out your latest comms strategy here before rolling it out more broadly?

Come on, CO staffers. You are taking something that could be really great for MCPS and turning it into something that will be mediocre at best and terrible at worst (especially for poorer kids and schools, while pretending this is about equity), purely due to your speed and hubris (unwillingness to genuinely seek out and consider feedback from others.) Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

+1000

I am so angry at Taylor and all the BOE members supporting him. My friends and family often ask me who to vote for in local elections and I will absolutely tell them unequivocally not to vote for Yang or Silvestre for County Council. My friends in Bethesda will be very receptive to my concerns about how fiscally irresponsible this plan is especially now. I will also suggest they either abstain from from voting for the District 1 and District 5 races unless viable alternatives to Rivera-Oven and Brenda Wolff decide to run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

I didn't even read this whole thing after I saw the lies in the very first few answers... could tell this would all be BS (maybe even AI-written BS?) You may be able to fool the Board and the uninformed public but you can't fool those of us who have been paying attention.

Also, you missed several questions, including but not limited to "Why didn't MCPS consider equity in program placement and why are they benefiting rich schools over poorer schools in the placement of academic programs?"' and "How can MCPS pretend this proposal is equitable when they won't even guarantee neighborhood bus stops for the program buses?" and "Why is MCPS lying in their presentations to the Board if this is really so great?"

Thank you, PP, for adding your concerns and feedback. Please continue to brainstorm any and all issues you have with the program rollout or even the sources listed if you question them.

Thank you again.

If you really want feedback you would reconvene the design team (like a sucker I will still come back and give you as much more of my time as you ask for, because I so strongly support the vision of what you're trying to do and am so deeply concerned about what will happen if you implement it as currently planned without revisions.)

Or at least you could create even one feedback form for the public where you invite people to make suggestions and tell you what they genuinely think of your proposals. This has still not happened even once throughout this whole process.

Until those things happen, it is clear that you are not actually interested in feedback, only in pretending you have collected some. But it is not too late to change that.

[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?

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

Do you have a source that shows it's guaranteed? Mcps has made an awful lot of "guarantees" in my 25 years as a teacher then parent here. The slide deck referenced here clearly shows disparities in the programs offered- Global, SMACS, and CAP to name a few.

Thanks for sharing. Why would this keep happening at MCPS? I get the sense that no superintendent is ever given a chance to succeed *because* of this persistent lack of trust.

I understand that there might have been bad experiences in the past, but we have a whole new superintendent now. So why is the distrust continuing? Have you observed anything concerning under superintendent Taylor’s leadership? I read on here about a childcare issue, but haven’t seen evidence to support it. Anything else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Do you have a source that shows it's guaranteed? Mcps has made an awful lot of "guarantees" in my 25 years as a teacher then parent here. The slide deck referenced here clearly shows disparities in the programs offered- Global, SMACS, and CAP to name a few.

Thanks for sharing. Why would this keep happening at MCPS? I get the sense that no superintendent is ever given a chance to succeed *because* of this persistent lack of trust.

I understand that there might have been bad experiences in the past, but we have a whole new superintendent now. So why is the distrust continuing? Have you observed anything concerning under superintendent Taylor’s leadership? I read on here about a childcare issue, but haven’t seen evidence to support it. Anything else?

Ask anybody who used a school-based childcare provider last year about how many days after the snow storm ended he prohibited the providers from opening.

[Anonymous]

We live in “Region 6” and the changes are awful..They are trying to make Ecology “interest” based- this is crazy considering it’s a tough program that requires monthly field studies with significant make up work plus the current program has high rigor with significant AP coursework component. They are setting the program up to fail. SMCs is reduced rigor. They also are trying to put a criteria based non common foreign language program in the smallest
school in the county which currently only offers Spanish and French.

[Anonymous]

Fyi, trust is earned. Taylor is showing us who he is - someone determined to lie and coerce to get what he wants on his resume so he can get a cushy EdTech job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

I didn't even read this whole thing after I saw the lies in the very first few answers... could tell this would all be BS (maybe even AI-written BS?) You may be able to fool the Board and the uninformed public but you can't fool those of us who have been paying attention.

Also, you missed several questions, including but not limited to "Why didn't MCPS consider equity in program placement and why are they benefiting rich schools over poorer schools in the placement of academic programs?"' and "How can MCPS pretend this proposal is equitable when they won't even guarantee neighborhood bus stops for the program buses?" and "Why is MCPS lying in their presentations to the Board if this is really so great?"

Thank you, PP, for adding your concerns and feedback. Please continue to brainstorm any and all issues you have with the program rollout or even the sources listed if you question them.

Thank you again.

If you really want feedback you would reconvene the design team (like a sucker I will still come back and give you as much more of my time as you ask for, because I so strongly support the vision of what you're trying to do and am so deeply concerned about what will happen if you implement it as currently planned without revisions.)

Or at least you could create even one feedback form for the public where you invite people to make suggestions and tell you what they genuinely think of your proposals. This has still not happened even once throughout this whole process.

Until those things happen, it is clear that you are not actually interested in feedback, only in pretending you have collected some. But it is not too late to change that.

I’m just an MCPS parent who heard the commotion about MCPS “getting rid of programs”, got concerned for my own kids and started doing some digging around and posing questions directly to MCPS.

Not a staffer.
Not Jeannie Franklin.
Not an MCPS employee in any shape or form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait. Corporations are calling MCPS hard to work with, specifically because kids aren't getting the right college degrees, something that happens 4-8 years after students leave MCPS? This makes no sense. Show us the quote.

No - not because they aren’t “getting the right degrees”, but because they aren’t *prepared* for the right degrees. The quote is about MCPS previously being “difficult to work with” from a conversation I had at an event.

Specifically, the concern was that MCPS students can graduate elementary school not even knowing basics like “differences between plant and animal cells”. Along with that, future middle school students were not expected to have strong interest in say Biology-based fields by middle school because understanding cells is such a crucial cornerstone. It wouldn’t even make sense to invest in a middle school outreach program unless things like that changed. Fortunately, that *was* changed with CKLA, probably thanks to some amazing advocates as well as Taylor’s leadership (so thank you to the folks that helped with him becoming our current superintendent!).

The gist of that is corroborated both in the 2017 MCPS EPS report and in the Baltimore Sun:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2017/10/11/wanted-workers-with-actual-skills/

It’s behind a paywall, but it states that “career preparation ‘has been marginalized as a priority’” at MCPS. It further went on to essentially predict the outcomes we see today - people being barely able to afford necessities as evidenced by the long lines for food in our county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

I didn't even read this whole thing after I saw the lies in the very first few answers... could tell this would all be BS (maybe even AI-written BS?) You may be able to fool the Board and the uninformed public but you can't fool those of us who have been paying attention.

Also, you missed several questions, including but not limited to "Why didn't MCPS consider equity in program placement and why are they benefiting rich schools over poorer schools in the placement of academic programs?"' and "How can MCPS pretend this proposal is equitable when they won't even guarantee neighborhood bus stops for the program buses?" and "Why is MCPS lying in their presentations to the Board if this is really so great?"

Thank you, PP, for adding your concerns and feedback. Please continue to brainstorm any and all issues you have with the program rollout or even the sources listed if you question them.

Thank you again.

If you really want feedback you would reconvene the design team (like a sucker I will still come back and give you as much more of my time as you ask for, because I so strongly support the vision of what you're trying to do and am so deeply concerned about what will happen if you implement it as currently planned without revisions.)

Or at least you could create even one feedback form for the public where you invite people to make suggestions and tell you what they genuinely think of your proposals. This has still not happened even once throughout this whole process.

Until those things happen, it is clear that you are not actually interested in feedback, only in pretending you have collected some. But it is not too late to change that.

I’m just an MCPS parent who heard the commotion about MCPS “getting rid of programs”, got concerned for my own kids and started doing some digging around and posing questions directly to MCPS.

Not a staffer.
Not Jeannie Franklin.
Not an MCPS employee in any shape or form.

And so in doing your "research" you decided to take on all of Taylor and MCPS's talking points and decided they were 100% right and the community was wrong?