Thursday Nov 20 BOE Discussion on Boundaries and Regional Program Model

[Anonymous]

It’s not easy. I’m not sure why you think it would be. The BCC Foundation was started many years ago and has grown.

I know there are parents in Woodside and Forest Glen and other DCC communities that can get a foundation off the ground. There are many professionals in the community that have the skills to do that or to tap into their networks to get it done- lawyers, nonprofit professionals, etc.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and happy to help. Just say the word.

[Anonymous]

Exactly- we don’t have a vetted HS English or science curriculum- but we’ll have all these programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not easy. I’m not sure why you think it would be. The BCC Foundation was started many years ago and has grown.

I know there are parents in Woodside and Forest Glen and other DCC communities that can get a foundation off the ground. There are many professionals in the community that have the skills to do that or to tap into their networks to get it done- lawyers, nonprofit professionals, etc.

Great, nice you hear you can organize a group to start it and get it up and running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly- we don’t have a vetted HS English or science curriculum- but we’ll have all these programs?

Good question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and happy to help. Just say the word.

Please, go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that even at Northwood no one is interested in CASE. The counselors keep stuffing the CASE classes with random kids who need an elective or CTE credit. Why would they elevate Case to a regional program. They are determined to shove it down peoples throats but they would never dare do that at Whitman or Churchill

If not even enough kids at one school are interested in it, how can they plan for it to be a criteria-based program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that even at Northwood no one is interested in CASE. The counselors keep stuffing the CASE classes with random kids who need an elective or CTE credit. Why would they elevate Case to a regional program. They are determined to shove it down peoples throats but they would never dare do that at Whitman or Churchill

If not even enough kids at one school are interested in it, how can they plan for it to be a criteria-based program?

This is exactly why a regional program could be a good idea. There are interested kids, but not enough to have it at all the schools in a region, so you bring those kids together.

The new proposal is a mind shift- more access to programs for more kids. What the current structure has is a few programs with great reputations that many compete to be a part of. I think they may be going overboard with the number of programs, but in theory think they are truly trying to provide more opportunities and more access to the majority of kids, rather than serving a few.

In some ways the community input has helped, but in others, it has spread things too thin. Schools/communities get upset that they won't have something, so they add another program. Rather than bringing together the programs that need specialized resources, they are spreading them across a region to avoid hurt feelings.

My personal two cents is that the premise is good, but they've gone too far. I would gladly support of 4 region model, doubling the number of the "most competitive" programs (SMACS, IB, Humanities) available and adding some interest based pathways and/or less common languages hubs to bring together kids interested in courses that are hard to offer due to numbers.

[Anonymous]

Agree with you PP. The idea is nice but they have gone too far. I went to one of the engagement sessions and specifically asked Essie and Nicky why did they choose six regions, rather than five or four or three. Essie’s answer was that six seemed to make the most sense, given transportation, logistics, and the general size of the county. That was it. My prediction is they will do this, and then within five years realize that it’s too much - not enough programs are fully enrolled, there are major downsides, and they will scale it back and perhaps combine some of the regions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with you PP. The idea is nice but they have gone too far. I went to one of the engagement sessions and specifically asked Essie and Nicky why did they choose six regions, rather than five or four or three. Essie’s answer was that six seemed to make the most sense, given transportation, logistics, and the general size of the county. That was it. My prediction is they will do this, and then within five years realize that it’s too much - not enough programs are fully enrolled, there are major downsides, and they will scale it back and perhaps combine some of the regions.

They should have started by figuring out demand. But they were somewhere that they went straight a complicated solution without figuring out the fundamentals needed to create that solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with you PP. The idea is nice but they have gone too far. I went to one of the engagement sessions and specifically asked Essie and Nicky why did they choose six regions, rather than five or four or three. Essie’s answer was that six seemed to make the most sense, given transportation, logistics, and the general size of the county. That was it. My prediction is they will do this, and then within five years realize that it’s too much - not enough programs are fully enrolled, there are major downsides, and they will scale it back and perhaps combine some of the regions.

Not even 5 years. I’m willing to bet with you. Once Taylor is gone, they will quietly decommission these programs one by one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is such an idiot. He mentioned a 200 person “full size” orchestra or band. Then he bragged about how “instrument construction” might even be a part of a criteria based instrumental music program.

It’s clear MCPS hasn’t looked at any of the nationally known Perfirming Arts High Schools such as Duje Ellington, LaGuardia, or even the Virginia Governor’s School for the arts. You don’t break these kids up! Theatre kids need good instrumentalists to play in the pit of their musicals and real dancers on stage. You need good visual artists working on set design. Splitting these concentrations will limit the number of authentic experiences kids will have in MCPS.

Also, Taylor was incorrect when the said MCPS didn’t currently have any criteria based instrumental music strike music programs. Almost every MS and HS has at least one audition only instrumental ensemble such as a wind ensemble, jazz band, etc.

Is MCPS ready to start providing audition workshops and all the other outreach necessary for true criteria based music programs that can be successful?

He doesn't know anything about music. The private orchestra groups are around 100, maybe slightly more students, never 200. You couldn't even get 200 on a stage. Instrument construction - what does that even mean? They don't have metal or woodworking shops.

This is actually hilarious. The Berlin Philharmonic is considered a large orchestra and they have 129 players, and never all on stage at the same time. I'm trying to envision the instrumentation for a 200-person orchestra. And the cost. Because in the name of equity, MCPS would have to supply the instruments. For example, even a marginally functional student cello runs around $2000, and in Taylor's imaginary enormous orchestra they're going to need about 30-40 of them. If they're planning to do instrument building and repair (there's an in-demand field, what with the booming popularity of classical music--not) they can't rent them.

I look forward to the MCPS-supplied woodworking shops with MCPS students acting as luthiers on these expensive instruments. The cost will be enormous. Taylor is a genius. Or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that even at Northwood no one is interested in CASE. The counselors keep stuffing the CASE classes with random kids who need an elective or CTE credit. Why would they elevate Case to a regional program. They are determined to shove it down peoples throats but they would never dare do that at Whitman or Churchill

If not even enough kids at one school are interested in it, how can they plan for it to be a criteria-based program?

This is exactly why a regional program could be a good idea. There are interested kids, but not enough to have it at all the schools in a region, so you bring those kids together.

The new proposal is a mind shift- more access to programs for more kids. What the current structure has is a few programs with great reputations that many compete to be a part of. I think they may be going overboard with the number of programs, but in theory think they are truly trying to provide more opportunities and more access to the majority of kids, rather than serving a few.

In some ways the community input has helped, but in others, it has spread things too thin. Schools/communities get upset that they won't have something, so they add another program. Rather than bringing together the programs that need specialized resources, they are spreading them across a region to avoid hurt feelings.

My personal two cents is that the premise is good, but they've gone too far. I would gladly support of 4 region model, doubling the number of the "most competitive" programs (SMACS, IB, Humanities) available and adding some interest based pathways and/or less common languages hubs to bring together kids interested in courses that are hard to offer due to numbers.

The problem is that their version of community input has been to put out half-baked proposals publicly (e.g. "let's put an education program at Einstein" "Um... we were actually planning on dissolving that due to lack of interest") and then respond to whomever they have upset the most. They really needed more time to internally develop a stronger proposal with principal input before putting out something public. Now they are just running around adding programs like chickens with their heads cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that even at Northwood no one is interested in CASE. The counselors keep stuffing the CASE classes with random kids who need an elective or CTE credit. Why would they elevate Case to a regional program. They are determined to shove it down peoples throats but they would never dare do that at Whitman or Churchill

If not even enough kids at one school are interested in it, how can they plan for it to be a criteria-based program?

This is exactly why a regional program could be a good idea. There are interested kids, but not enough to have it at all the schools in a region, so you bring those kids together.

The new proposal is a mind shift- more access to programs for more kids. What the current structure has is a few programs with great reputations that many compete to be a part of. I think they may be going overboard with the number of programs, but in theory think they are truly trying to provide more opportunities and more access to the majority of kids, rather than serving a few.

In some ways the community input has helped, but in others, it has spread things too thin. Schools/communities get upset that they won't have something, so they add another program. Rather than bringing together the programs that need specialized resources, they are spreading them across a region to avoid hurt feelings.

My personal two cents is that the premise is good, but they've gone too far. I would gladly support of 4 region model, doubling the number of the "most competitive" programs (SMACS, IB, Humanities) available and adding some interest based pathways and/or less common languages hubs to bring together kids interested in courses that are hard to offer due to numbers.

I too could be on board for a 3-4 region model program largely based on already established programs with another 1-2 SMCS and Humanities programs built thoughtfully and with the support of already established programs. I actually think they would get a lot more support for that model. But MCPS likes the number 6 for some unknown reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that even at Northwood no one is interested in CASE. The counselors keep stuffing the CASE classes with random kids who need an elective or CTE credit. Why would they elevate Case to a regional program. They are determined to shove it down peoples throats but they would never dare do that at Whitman or Churchill

If not even enough kids at one school are interested in it, how can they plan for it to be a criteria-based program?

This is exactly why a regional program could be a good idea. There are interested kids, but not enough to have it at all the schools in a region, so you bring those kids together.

The new proposal is a mind shift- more access to programs for more kids. What the current structure has is a few programs with great reputations that many compete to be a part of. I think they may be going overboard with the number of programs, but in theory think they are truly trying to provide more opportunities and more access to the majority of kids, rather than serving a few.

In some ways the community input has helped, but in others, it has spread things too thin. Schools/communities get upset that they won't have something, so they add another program. Rather than bringing together the programs that need specialized resources, they are spreading them across a region to avoid hurt feelings.

My personal two cents is that the premise is good, but they've gone too far. I would gladly support of 4 region model, doubling the number of the "most competitive" programs (SMACS, IB, Humanities) available and adding some interest based pathways and/or less common languages hubs to bring together kids interested in courses that are hard to offer due to numbers.

The problem is few want some of these programs which shut down years ago for a reason. Without extra funding how does it work?