Please be aware of what is about to go away:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

DCC and NEC would go away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s fair because anything new has to start somewhere. The fairness is in the opportunity. Additionally, the new program has the opportunity to learn best practices from the Einstein program and there is also opportunity for new ideas.

I would agree with you if they were planning to do the rollout in a thoughtful and phased way, where they start by adding 1 or 2 new magnets at a time and have the ability to execute a strong transition with appropriate staffing, support from VAC teachers, etc. And then if there is demand for more programs, adding more a few years later so that second transition can be done well too.

Instead they are planning to launch 5 new regional visual arts programs, plus dozens of other new programs, all in the same year. Recipe for disaster.

This +1. The majority concerns expressed here are to SLOW DOWN. Do it one or two at a time, demonstrating a successful pilot model, and people accept for another expansion. It’s the same concern on the Bethesda magazine article from study team members. I don’t get what makes CO and Dr. Taylor so deaf and stubborn on an idea that the majority have similar concerns about.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

DCC and NEC would go away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s fair because anything new has to start somewhere. The fairness is in the opportunity. Additionally, the new program has the opportunity to learn best practices from the Einstein program and there is also opportunity for new ideas.

I would agree with you if they were planning to do the rollout in a thoughtful and phased way, where they start by adding 1 or 2 new magnets at a time and have the ability to execute a strong transition with appropriate staffing, support from VAC teachers, etc. And then if there is demand for more programs, adding more a few years later so that second transition can be done well too.

Instead they are planning to launch 5 new regional visual arts programs, plus dozens of other new programs, all in the same year. Recipe for disaster.

This +1. The majority concerns expressed here are to SLOW DOWN. Do it one or two at a time, demonstrating a successful pilot model, and people accept for another expansion. It’s the same concern on the Bethesda magazine article from study team members. I don’t get what makes CO and Dr. Taylor so deaf and stubborn on an idea that the majority have similar concerns about.

Taylor doesn't understand MCPS or care what the parents and staff want/need. He wants to make change for the sake of making change vs. what's best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

DCC and NEC would go away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s fair because anything new has to start somewhere. The fairness is in the opportunity. Additionally, the new program has the opportunity to learn best practices from the Einstein program and there is also opportunity for new ideas.

This cavalier throw the existing students under the bus attitude is deeply disturbing. That’s not fair or opportunity.

??? Now you’re just making up stuff. No one is throwing the existing students under the bus. In fact the existing students get to finish in their programs as is. You’re afraid of change and new things.

Claiming existing programs will stay “as is” is deliberately naive. The math says otherwise.

What math? Many of the schools don't have high level math and losing the DCC is going to really hurt them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

The staffing ratios are equitable. The courses offered may not be, but that's not because of the staffing ratio. High schools with ~1600 students have enough teachers to offer a broad range of courses.

[Anonymous]

This +1. The majority concerns expressed here are to SLOW DOWN. Do it one or two at a time, demonstrating a successful pilot model, and people accept for another expansion. It’s the same concern on the Bethesda magazine article from study team members. I don’t get what makes CO and Dr. Taylor so deaf and stubborn on an idea that the majority have similar concerns about.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what probably has to go away are all of the special-interest "academies" in the DCC or the NEC that were open to anyone who lotteried into a given school. That matters to my performing-arts kid A LOT. But since nothing matters except STEM I can't even get a straight answer out of DCCAPS.

Northwood is getting a criteria based performing arts magnet. That's great, actually.

No, that will be great five years from now *if* the necessary resources are directed towards it and appropriate staff can be newly hired, rather than draining limited arts resources and faculty from other schools (whose arts programs might already be precarious).

It is manifestly *not* great for my 8th grader, who now has no idea where to apply or attend. No matter what Northwood becomes, it will not be a destination school for the arts 10 months from now when DC starts high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

That's part of the problem. In all of the discourse about Regions, MCPS has not committed to continuing the local programs at the individual schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

Einstein has already built a reputable reputation with VAPA and Einstein. It has a whole floor dedicated for Dance. Are these resources suppose to collect dust?

Other schools are also losing signature programs. Einstein is not alone.

So again this begs the question of what current 8th graders in the arts are supposed to do. Extract a verbal commitment that VAPA will survive (and the staff will not be transferred to Northwood) and apply to Einstein? Apply to Northwood, which right now has no arts facilities at all and which historically has not had the richest or most competitive arts programming? Apply to Blair on the grounds that size will naturally bring or require resources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

The staffing ratios are equitable. The courses offered may not be, but that's not because of the staffing ratio. High schools with ~1600 students have enough teachers to offer a broad range of courses.

Hahahahaha! That's a good one!

The staffing ratios would be equitable if, at each school, there were staff enough to ensure delivery of similar educational experiences/options to any prospective student. As it is, especially in secondary (and more specifically at the HS level), there's staffing in the W-type clusters to allow a student there access to a much wider variety of high-level courses than that which is available at Einstein. The staffing allocation at Einstein, and at a number of schools elsewhere, is insufficient both to provide that level of opportunity and to address the differential needs of the higher proportion of students with language barriers and lower family resources.

[Anonymous]

It’s interesting that MCPS is marketing the webinar explaining this proposal as for 6th and 7th grade families. There is no way this doesn’t impact 8th graders as the carpets are being rolled up under their feet. This is very frustrating for 8th graders in the DCC process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

The staffing ratios are equitable. The courses offered may not be, but that's not because of the staffing ratio. High schools with ~1600 students have enough teachers to offer a broad range of courses.

Hahahahaha! That's a good one!

The staffing ratios would be equitable if, at each school, there were staff enough to ensure delivery of similar educational experiences/options to any prospective student. As it is, especially in secondary (and more specifically at the HS level), there's staffing in the W-type clusters to allow a student there access to a much wider variety of high-level courses than that which is available at Einstein. The staffing allocation at Einstein, and at a number of schools elsewhere, is insufficient both to provide that level of opportunity and to address the differential needs of the higher proportion of students with language barriers and lower family resources.

Wait, why would they be different? It's a set formula based on number of students, right? I don't understand. Is there some other reason you know about that gives W schools more staff?

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing with how the Einstein principal chooses to use the staff allotted? That's not a staffing allocation issue though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

The staffing ratios are equitable. The courses offered may not be, but that's not because of the staffing ratio. High schools with ~1600 students have enough teachers to offer a broad range of courses.

Hahahahaha! That's a good one!

The staffing ratios would be equitable if, at each school, there were staff enough to ensure delivery of similar educational experiences/options to any prospective student. As it is, especially in secondary (and more specifically at the HS level), there's staffing in the W-type clusters to allow a student there access to a much wider variety of high-level courses than that which is available at Einstein. The staffing allocation at Einstein, and at a number of schools elsewhere, is insufficient both to provide that level of opportunity and to address the differential needs of the higher proportion of students with language barriers and lower family resources.

Wait, why would they be different? It's a set formula based on number of students, right? I don't understand. Is there some other reason you know about that gives W schools more staff?

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing with how the Einstein principal chooses to use the staff allotted? That's not a staffing allocation issue though.

Of course it is a staffing allocation issue. It was pointed out that a strictly per-pupil staffing allocation results in inequities related to curricular offerings. And that Einstein principal is constrained by policy/regulation to allocate resources a certain way -- which is the same for other principals, of course, but they are, then, not faced with the same magnitude of required resource allocation.

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing that all students in MCPS should have equivalent access to educational opportunity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

The staffing ratios are equitable. The courses offered may not be, but that's not because of the staffing ratio. High schools with ~1600 students have enough teachers to offer a broad range of courses.

Hahahahaha! That's a good one!

The staffing ratios would be equitable if, at each school, there were staff enough to ensure delivery of similar educational experiences/options to any prospective student. As it is, especially in secondary (and more specifically at the HS level), there's staffing in the W-type clusters to allow a student there access to a much wider variety of high-level courses than that which is available at Einstein. The staffing allocation at Einstein, and at a number of schools elsewhere, is insufficient both to provide that level of opportunity and to address the differential needs of the higher proportion of students with language barriers and lower family resources.

Wait, why would they be different? It's a set formula based on number of students, right? I don't understand. Is there some other reason you know about that gives W schools more staff?

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing with how the Einstein principal chooses to use the staff allotted? That's not a staffing allocation issue though.

Of course it is a staffing allocation issue. It was pointed out that a strictly per-pupil staffing allocation results in inequities related to curricular offerings. And that Einstein principal is constrained by policy/regulation to allocate resources a certain way -- which is the same for other principals, of course, but they are, then, not faced with the same magnitude of required resource allocation.

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing that all students in MCPS should have equivalent access to educational opportunity?

Are the W schools that much bigger than Einstein? I thought they were all around 2000 kids (except WJ)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

Neither of them have to go away. They can remain as regional (VAC) or local (VAPA) programs.

But the proposal moves the performing arts pathway to Northwood. How do you maintain that level of performing arts when the curriculum that supports it is intentionally moved?

Northwood already has performing arts as one of its academies, same as Einstein. Since they're going to have a brand new and larger building with good facilities, it makes sense to have the new program there.

And what of the current and future AEHS students? Just tough on them? I hate the scarcity mindset of MCPS that creates this really unhealthy hunger games for programs. All kids deserve access to a program like VAPA that 30% of Einstein students currently elect into.

Just to clear things up. VAPA is not a centrally-managed program. It's a local program open to any Einstein student. There's no reason this can't continue. The new program at Northwood is a centrally-managed, criteria-based performing arts (not visual arts) program, very different from VAPA.

Except that the boundary changes mean that AEHS will be under capacity with fewer students to support such programs so there are absolutely no guarantees that they will continue on the levels they are at currently. That they are rushing this through at the same time as the boundary changes without fully seeing how those are implemented is ridiculous.

So now your complaint is that a school will be slightly under capacity as opposed to over-capacity??? I'm sure HS with 12-20 portables would love to have that scenario.

The concern is losing students means losing staff and courses.

Yes staffing is based on the number of students. You could argue that the district allocation needs to be reviewed for all schools but advocating both not overcrowded and getting to retain more staff makes no sense.

The staffing is a huge issue as it impacts course offerings. So, if they move 400 students out, how many teachers and classes will be lost given the already limited offerings.

The number of teachers will always be proportional to the number of students. When a school is extremely overcrowded and there's a boundary change to correct that, then yes, some teachers will be transferred. Which is appropriate and sensible.

Correct but these schools are aready lacking in courses and reducing the number of teachers will only make that worse, not better. So much for equity.

The staffing ratios are equitable. The courses offered may not be, but that's not because of the staffing ratio. High schools with ~1600 students have enough teachers to offer a broad range of courses.

Hahahahaha! That's a good one!

The staffing ratios would be equitable if, at each school, there were staff enough to ensure delivery of similar educational experiences/options to any prospective student. As it is, especially in secondary (and more specifically at the HS level), there's staffing in the W-type clusters to allow a student there access to a much wider variety of high-level courses than that which is available at Einstein. The staffing allocation at Einstein, and at a number of schools elsewhere, is insufficient both to provide that level of opportunity and to address the differential needs of the higher proportion of students with language barriers and lower family resources.

Wait, why would they be different? It's a set formula based on number of students, right? I don't understand. Is there some other reason you know about that gives W schools more staff?

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing with how the Einstein principal chooses to use the staff allotted? That's not a staffing allocation issue though.

Of course it is a staffing allocation issue. It was pointed out that a strictly per-pupil staffing allocation results in inequities related to curricular offerings. And that Einstein principal is constrained by policy/regulation to allocate resources a certain way -- which is the same for other principals, of course, but they are, then, not faced with the same magnitude of required resource allocation.

Or is this more a matter of disagreeing that all students in MCPS should have equivalent access to educational opportunity?

Are the W schools that much bigger than Einstein? I thought they were all around 2000 kids (except WJ)?

The w schools don’t have as many esol and kids with disabilities do the priority is on those kids with the most needs.