Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

DP. The problem to me is not the consultant. I'm sure they can do their jobs and are competent. It is central office staff and leadership, who are telling them what to do. I'm sure they would not have released 4 maps each tied to one, and only one, priority, when they are supposed to be balacing the 4 priorities in any map.

Why are they in the same building as the electric bus company? 2 businesses from Massachusetts at same address get lucrative contracts with MCPS?

1. They’re not in the same building.

2. As the previous poster pointed out, it’s not that lucrative. It’s the equivalent of you going to McDonalds.

They are in same building. Why lie?

My mistake. It’s not the same, but they are next door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

DP. The problem to me is not the consultant. I'm sure they can do their jobs and are competent. It is central office staff and leadership, who are telling them what to do. I'm sure they would not have released 4 maps each tied to one, and only one, priority, when they are supposed to be balacing the 4 priorities in any map.

Why are they in the same building as the electric bus company? 2 businesses from Massachusetts at same address get lucrative contracts with MCPS?

1. They’re not in the same building.

2. As the previous poster pointed out, it’s not that lucrative. It’s the equivalent of you going to McDonalds.

They are in same building. Why lie?

My mistake. It’s not the same, but they are next door.

I don't understand what the significane of that is. So what? MA has a lot of educational consultants. The bigger problem is MCPS itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it maddening that MCPS allows (or promotes) two disparate elements that cannot be simultaneously true:

1. The first is the claim that equal opportunities are available to every student regardless of home school. This obviously fails when the benefits of parent engagement are included. I grew up in East County, and went to Paint Branch. I now have kids in the W schools. These might as well be on a different planet.

2. Teachers are allowed significant latitude as to where they teach once they obtain tenure. I was involved on a volunteer basis for years at a school with a significant FARMS %. 2 years in and the teachers would run to either a W school or leave the county.

There is no easy answer to the 2nd issue. Teachers are human and teaching is difficult under optimal circumstances. When you are dealing with the attendant problems of poverty, it is beyond difficult. But if you're going to let them move (or not incentivize them to stay), they are never going to get better and we'll be having this discussion forever.

At least in DCPS teachers get a pay bump for teaching at a Title I school. Is it different in Moco? It might not be enough of a bump at any rate.

They get nothing extra.

DCPS teachers get paid the same base pay no matter where they teach l. Only difference is that if you qualify for a bonus, it's bigger if you work at a title 1 school

Ok? This is mcps.

It was a suggestion following a discussion on why MCPS could not retain teachers at Title I schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it maddening that MCPS allows (or promotes) two disparate elements that cannot be simultaneously true:

1. The first is the claim that equal opportunities are available to every student regardless of home school. This obviously fails when the benefits of parent engagement are included. I grew up in East County, and went to Paint Branch. I now have kids in the W schools. These might as well be on a different planet.

2. Teachers are allowed significant latitude as to where they teach once they obtain tenure. I was involved on a volunteer basis for years at a school with a significant FARMS %. 2 years in and the teachers would run to either a W school or leave the county.

There is no easy answer to the 2nd issue. Teachers are human and teaching is difficult under optimal circumstances. When you are dealing with the attendant problems of poverty, it is beyond difficult. But if you're going to let them move (or not incentivize them to stay), they are never going to get better and we'll be having this discussion forever.

At least in DCPS teachers get a pay bump for teaching at a Title I school. Is it different in Moco? It might not be enough of a bump at any rate.

They get nothing extra.

DCPS teachers get paid the same base pay no matter where they teach l. Only difference is that if you qualify for a bonus, it's bigger if you work at a title 1 school

Ok? This is mcps.

It was a suggestion following a discussion on why MCPS could not retain teachers at Title I schools.

MCPS is mostly fully staffed for teachers. They are retaining teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

DP. The problem to me is not the consultant. I'm sure they can do their jobs and are competent. It is central office staff and leadership, who are telling them what to do. I'm sure they would not have released 4 maps each tied to one, and only one, priority, when they are supposed to be balacing the 4 priorities in any map.

Why are they in the same building as the electric bus company? 2 businesses from Massachusetts at same address get lucrative contracts with MCPS?

1. They’re not in the same building.

2. As the previous poster pointed out, it’s not that lucrative. It’s the equivalent of you going to McDonalds.

They are in same building. Why lie?

My mistake. It’s not the same, but they are next door.

I don't understand what the significane of that is. So what? MA has a lot of educational consultants. The bigger problem is MCPS itself.

MCPS has a huge central office. With AI, someone could figure this out. Ask the students to if the adults cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

We haven't done a comprehensive boundary study in 40 years - only 2-3 cluster studies when new schools have opened since the big closures of mid and downcounty schools in the mid-1980s. The one 5 years ago was a thought exercise to show how things could look when it was time to do the actual study. We really need to move the the Howard County and Fairfax County model of doing a countywide study every ten years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it maddening that MCPS allows (or promotes) two disparate elements that cannot be simultaneously true:

1. The first is the claim that equal opportunities are available to every student regardless of home school. This obviously fails when the benefits of parent engagement are included. I grew up in East County, and went to Paint Branch. I now have kids in the W schools. These might as well be on a different planet.

2. Teachers are allowed significant latitude as to where they teach once they obtain tenure. I was involved on a volunteer basis for years at a school with a significant FARMS %. 2 years in and the teachers would run to either a W school or leave the county.

There is no easy answer to the 2nd issue. Teachers are human and teaching is difficult under optimal circumstances. When you are dealing with the attendant problems of poverty, it is beyond difficult. But if you're going to let them move (or not incentivize them to stay), they are never going to get better and we'll be having this discussion forever.

At least in DCPS teachers get a pay bump for teaching at a Title I school. Is it different in Moco? It might not be enough of a bump at any rate.

They get nothing extra.

DCPS teachers get paid the same base pay no matter where they teach l. Only difference is that if you qualify for a bonus, it's bigger if you work at a title 1 school

Ok? This is mcps.

It was a suggestion following a discussion on why MCPS could not retain teachers at Title I schools.

MCPS is mostly fully staffed for teachers. They are retaining teachers.

to clarify: the discussion was about better teachers leaving Title I schools for non-title I schools. You can have full staffing even while the better teachers leave Title I schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

DP. The problem to me is not the consultant. I'm sure they can do their jobs and are competent. It is central office staff and leadership, who are telling them what to do. I'm sure they would not have released 4 maps each tied to one, and only one, priority, when they are supposed to be balacing the 4 priorities in any map.

Why are they in the same building as the electric bus company? 2 businesses from Massachusetts at same address get lucrative contracts with MCPS?

1. They’re not in the same building.

2. As the previous poster pointed out, it’s not that lucrative. It’s the equivalent of you going to McDonalds.

They are in same building. Why lie?

My mistake. It’s not the same, but they are next door.

I don't understand what the significane of that is. So what? MA has a lot of educational consultants. The bigger problem is MCPS itself.

MCPS has a huge central office. With AI, someone could figure this out. Ask the students to if the adults cannot.

So you are saying that MCPS should have done the analysis itself. That's a problem with central office, not the consultant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

[Anonymous]

Woodward sucks for my property value. Damn.

[Anonymous]

This whole thing is stupid. HS equity in a school system this large is not realistic. There’s a lot of socioeconomic disparity in spread apart parts of the county and artificially attempting to undo what has happened organically leads to long bus rides and kids not going to school with people who live right by them.

Brown v. Board of Ed was over 70 years ago. While a righteous goal, you can’t gerrymander your way out of racial, religious, and economic realities of neighborhoods people choose to live based on their economic means and free will choices of people they want to live by. This is a reality of capitalism and a diverse country.

I’m all for recognizing systemic disparities in our country and disagree with SCOTUS ending affirmative action. Invest in resources, give opportunities, etc. But there’s limits to what you can do to public schools based on geography. It results in absurdities and when stuff like this gets taken too far, helps get people like Trump elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woodward sucks for my property value. Damn.

Even WJ sucks in option 3. Prices can drop 10-15%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

We haven't done a comprehensive boundary study in 40 years - only 2-3 cluster studies when new schools have opened since the big closures of mid and downcounty schools in the mid-1980s. The one 5 years ago was a thought exercise to show how things could look when it was time to do the actual study. We really need to move the the Howard County and Fairfax County model of doing a countywide study every ten years.

In fact, Fairfax Cty is doing a countywide boundary study currently. Protestant yard signs (and probably a lot more), are in a few FC communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

DP. The problem to me is not the consultant. I'm sure they can do their jobs and are competent. It is central office staff and leadership, who are telling them what to do. I'm sure they would not have released 4 maps each tied to one, and only one, priority, when they are supposed to be balacing the 4 priorities in any map.

Why are they in the same building as the electric bus company? 2 businesses from Massachusetts at same address get lucrative contracts with MCPS?

1. They’re not in the same building.

2. As the previous poster pointed out, it’s not that lucrative. It’s the equivalent of you going to McDonalds.

They are in same building. Why lie?

My mistake. It’s not the same, but they are next door.

I don't understand what the significane of that is. So what? MA has a lot of educational consultants. The bigger problem is MCPS itself.

Just another amazing coincidence in MCPS contract awards.

Is MCPS in Massachusetts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward sucks for my property value. Damn.

Even WJ sucks in option 3. Prices can drop 10-15%.

If they drop it will not be schools and only so many can afford the inflated prices.