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:

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.

Wrong again, both WJ and Churchill (that I know of through experience) have special prigrams for students with disabilities, so please try trolling on a topic you actually know something about.

The problem isn't the number of teachers or the student teacher ratio, it's that there aren't 6 qualified teachers (one for each region) to teach the higher level math, physics, foreign language, etc. courses.

[Anonymous]

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.

Keep in mind that not all the teachers and infrastructure for all the programs is new. Other schools have art, dance, graphic design and theatre classes. Meaning there are teachers and facilities for these. They may not be as robust or in a formalized program as yet, but they may not be starting from zero.

[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:

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.

Wrong again, both WJ and Churchill (that I know of through experience) have special prigrams for students with disabilities, so please try trolling on a topic you actually know something about.

The problem isn't the number of teachers or the student teacher ratio, it's that there aren't 6 qualified teachers (one for each region) to teach the higher level math, physics, foreign language, etc. courses.[b]

Foreign language not included, how do you know that there aren’t qualified teachers? I know MS teachers with whole math degrees. And if not shouldn’t the question be about recruitment and salary?

[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:

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the W schools had a greater proportion of IEPs & 504s. Their families have the resources and know-how to pursue them.

The thing is that those designations come with differential funding directly tied to the associated personnel need/accommodation for the individual student. There is some set aside for EML and FARMS, but the latter is largely at the ES level, and the additional resources allocated are much farther below that which would address the associated need than for IEPs & 504 accommodations (each of which may be under-funded, but to a lesser degree).

The result is that staff at schools with higher language-barrier-related and poverty-related needs don't get enough, relative to the schools with lower need levels of those types, to spread the rest of the staffing (and other resource) allocation to address the needs of the rest of the student population, whether on-level, advanced or special school programming in the way that those schools with that lower EML/poverty need can/do. This is inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

They need the BOE approval but the BOE isn’t going to vote no.

At the meeting this afternoon, Silvestre said the board will vote on the boundary studies, but that the program analysis is a superintendent action.

[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:

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.

Wrong again, both WJ and Churchill (that I know of through experience) have special prigrams for students with disabilities, so please try trolling on a topic you actually know something about.

The problem isn't the number of teachers or the student teacher ratio, it's that there aren't 6 qualified teachers (one for each region) to teach the higher level math, physics, foreign language, etc. courses.

There are qualified teachers.

[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:

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the W schools had a greater proportion of IEPs & 504s. Their families have the resources and know-how to pursue them.

The thing is that those designations come with differential funding directly tied to the associated personnel need/accommodation for the individual student. There is some set aside for EML and FARMS, but the latter is largely at the ES level, and the additional resources allocated are much farther below that which would address the associated need than for IEPs & 504 accommodations (each of which may be under-funded, but to a lesser degree).

The result is that staff at schools with higher language-barrier-related and poverty-related needs don't get enough, relative to the schools with lower need levels of those types, to spread the rest of the staffing (and other resource) allocation to address the needs of the rest of the student population, whether on-level, advanced or special school programming in the way that those schools with that lower EML/poverty need can/do. This is inequitable.

I would not blame poverty or language, we have one admin who refuses to give IEPs. Even for basic support. Even with well documented concerns.

[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:

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.

Wrong again, both WJ and Churchill (that I know of through experience) have special prigrams for students with disabilities, so please try trolling on a topic you actually know something about.

The problem isn't the number of teachers or the student teacher ratio, it's that there aren't 6 qualified teachers (one for each region) to teach the higher level math, physics, foreign language, etc. courses.[b]

Foreign language not included, how do you know that there aren’t qualified teachers? I know MS teachers with whole math degrees. And if not shouldn’t the question be about recruitment and salary?

They are making excuses. We have several really strong teachers with masters in math and science. They are very capable.

[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:

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.

Wrong again, both WJ and Churchill (that I know of through experience) have special prigrams for students with disabilities, so please try trolling on a topic you actually know something about.

The problem isn't the number of teachers or the student teacher ratio, it's that there aren't 6 qualified teachers (one for each region) to teach the higher level math, physics, foreign language, etc. courses.

There are qualified teachers.

Are there, though?

[Anonymous]

There are tons of great teachers in the US but through mismanagement, contract violation, and bullying great teachers are driven out and they don't likely return to the abusive profession.

[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:

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.

Lets not pretend cost VS benefit doesn't apply to kids. Dumping money on lost causes vs building future contributors to society is needed in the equation. Opposed to just spending cycles to provide people some faux high ground so they can say they are not Ahole. At some point results have to matter and at some point a person's "potential" or "fairness" isn't a factor being considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

They need the BOE approval but the BOE isn’t going to vote no.

At the meeting this afternoon, Silvestre said the board will vote on the boundary studies, but that the program analysis is a superintendent action.

She is wrong. MCPS has said repeatedly that the Board will vote on it in December. (May or may not be true that the Board is not *required* to vote on it under current policy, but they are going to.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

Thanks PP. But even if she is right that program decisions do not *require* a Board vote (although the Board could theoretically change its policies to require a Board vote in the future when programs are created or eliminated, or at least programs over a certain size), they are having a Board vote on this in December. So I don't understand her point.

Taylor said it was a big enough change that they would bring it to the Board for a vote. If they pass this, then it’s on them as much as him.

They need the BOE approval but the BOE isn’t going to vote no.

At the meeting this afternoon, Silvestre said the board will vote on the boundary studies, but that the program analysis is a superintendent action.

She is wrong. MCPS has said repeatedly that the Board will vote on it in December. (May or may not be true that the Board is not *required* to vote on it under current policy, but they are going to.)

There's no board vote on the program analysis included in the timeline on p. 48 here:

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

[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:

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.

Lets not pretend cost VS benefit doesn't apply to kids. Dumping money on lost causes vs building future contributors to society is needed in the equation. Opposed to just spending cycles to provide people some faux high ground so they can say they are not Ahole. At some point results have to matter and at some point a person's "potential" or "fairness" isn't a factor being considered.

They should get way more than what they are getting but not at the expense of other students needs not being met.

[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:

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.

Lets not pretend cost VS benefit doesn't apply to kids. Dumping money on lost causes vs building future contributors to society is needed in the equation. Opposed to just spending cycles to provide people some faux high ground so they can say they are not Ahole. At some point results have to matter and at some point a person's "potential" or "fairness" isn't a factor being considered.

They should get way more than what they are getting but not at the expense of other students needs not being met.

Zero sum game unless you are willing to fork over more in taxes to cover both. It sounds like you are supporting the status quo, then?