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:

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.

Lovely characterizations -- "lost causes" vs. "contributors to society"

"Dumping [public] money" in a way that reinforces/exacerbates entrenched advantages limits social mobility, increases the ills borne by all associated with class division and encourages a largely unproductive race for (often artificially limited) opportunity when compared with productivity gains seen from broadly inclusive societal participation, especially as viewed through the lens of history.

[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.

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.

Sympathies for the IEP stumbling block you've ebcountered, but I'm not sure what your point is.

The post wasn't blaming poverty or language, but pointing out the known differential impact of those factors across schools, considering the resources allocated are more limited (vs. that needed) in addressing them than those allocated for other conditions that might introduce operational challenge. Blame, if it needs to be called that, would go to MCPS central's failure to provide the requisite/relative differential resource support.

[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:

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.

Sympathies for the IEP stumbling block you've ebcountered, but I'm not sure what your point is.

The post wasn't blaming poverty or language, but pointing out the known differential impact of those factors across schools, considering the resources allocated are more limited (vs. that needed) in addressing them than those allocated for other conditions that might introduce operational challenge. Blame, if it needs to be called that, would go to MCPS central's failure to provide the requisite/relative differential resource support.

And MCPS's ongoing central effort to extract more from Einstein and alike. Please Einstein parents and students, be vocal, do testimony, visit your community to collect supports. Yesterday's testimony for VAPA is a good starting point, but you need to be more loud.

[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:

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.

Sympathies for the IEP stumbling block you've ebcountered, but I'm not sure what your point is.

The post wasn't blaming poverty or language, but pointing out the known differential impact of those factors across schools, considering the resources allocated are more limited (vs. that needed) in addressing them than those allocated for other conditions that might introduce operational challenge. Blame, if it needs to be called that, would go to MCPS central's failure to provide the requisite/relative differential resource support.

We'll just pull our remaining child from MCPS come HS.

[Anonymous]

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.

Nope. Not consortia. Students can apply to magnets but not pick their school like they do in the DCC and NEC. Programs in DCC and NEC schools that don’t get tapped as regional magnets will be downgraded to “local” and lose participation. They’ll probably end up with staff cuts to a lot of electives. It’s going to suck for those schools, but hey! BCC gets to be a regional IB magnet. And Wooton and Churchill students won’t have to compete with kids from other schools to get into the RM IB. WJ gets cool humanities magnets.

This is gonna be so great for all the rich schools! Abundance! Access! Who cares if The Poors get lousy options, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the proposal, Wheaton Biomedical is also going away (moving to Kennedy.)

Wheaton Biomedical needs to stay at Wheaton. Central office planners did not factor in considerations for building requirements for programs when they cut and pasted programs elsewhere. Wheaton's Biomedical program utilizes Edison's facilities (on the same campus as Wheaton) for the biomedical program. If it moves to Kennedy. MCPS will have to make building changes, which MCPS has said they aren't going to do. Given the decrepit state of out so many schools, there is no money for building changes.

I wish central office had done its homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the proposal, Wheaton Biomedical is also going away (moving to Kennedy.)

Wheaton Biomedical needs to stay at Wheaton. Central office planners did not factor in considerations for building requirements for programs when they cut and pasted programs elsewhere. Wheaton's Biomedical program utilizes Edison's facilities (on the same campus as Wheaton) for the biomedical program. If it moves to Kennedy. MCPS will have to make building changes, which MCPS has said they aren't going to do. Given the decrepit state of out so many schools, there is no money for building changes.

I wish central office had done its homework.

Or just bus the kids or tell the kids to figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the proposal, Wheaton Biomedical is also going away (moving to Kennedy.)

Wheaton Biomedical needs to stay at Wheaton. Central office planners did not factor in considerations for building requirements for programs when they cut and pasted programs elsewhere. Wheaton's Biomedical program utilizes Edison's facilities (on the same campus as Wheaton) for the biomedical program. If it moves to Kennedy. MCPS will have to make building changes, which MCPS has said they aren't going to do. Given the decrepit state of out so many schools, there is no money for building changes.

I wish central office had done its homework.

They hired an outside company out of state to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in the proposal, Wheaton Biomedical is also going away (moving to Kennedy.)

Wheaton Biomedical needs to stay at Wheaton. Central office planners did not factor in considerations for building requirements for programs when they cut and pasted programs elsewhere. Wheaton's Biomedical program utilizes Edison's facilities (on the same campus as Wheaton) for the biomedical program. If it moves to Kennedy. MCPS will have to make building changes, which MCPS has said they aren't going to do. Given the decrepit state of out so many schools, there is no money for building changes.

I wish central office had done its homework.

They hired an outside company out of state to do this.

They hired an outside company to do the boundary analysis, which hence didn’t factor in the local traffic, community cohesion, etc. Then they hired a local consult company to do the QA to community, which failed drastically so they fired the consultant company and decide to do QA themselves in the upcoming second round of boundary options. For the regional model, they didn’t hire any 3rd party company. They formulated a study team with steakholders (e.g., MCCPTA, MCEA, NEC and DCC representatives), but ignore all their inputs. I don’t see hiring a 3rd party professional can help any. For deaf ears and closed eyes, subject matter experts and local community concerns means nothing but junk for central office.

[Anonymous]

Don't be fooled - these regional programs are just MCPS/BOE way of decreasing the furor around the boundary studies. When Blake opened, MCPS created the NEC so that they wouldn't have to make hard boundary lines. Same with the reopening of Northwood, which created the DCC. Instead of making tough boundary decisions that no one every likes, it was easier to just create the consortia - parents feel they have a choice and much of the heat is taken off MCPS/BOE.

Skip ahead to 2025. There are two new high schools opening (Crown and Woodward). Boundary studies are done and people are up in arms about the proposals. MCPS is going back to the old playbook and making countywide regions (essentially consortia) so the boundary lines are soft and not hard - thereby lessening the complaints about the boundaries.

News flash though - the consortia overall have been failures. While many parents and students have been happy about being given some choice, the consortia have destroyed the community feel of the high schools. Transportation costs have skyrocketed. Many of the signature programs are not that special - maybe a few extra sections or courses offered due to increased interest from students with similar interests consolidating at a school.

Maybe the new regional model will be more successful, but more than likely it will only result in increased transportation costs, less community feel of schools, challenges with participation in extracurriculars and lots of issues with implementation. Hopefully I am wrong though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sympathies for the IEP stumbling block you've ebcountered, but I'm not sure what your point is.

The post wasn't blaming poverty or language, but pointing out the known differential impact of those factors across schools, considering the resources allocated are more limited (vs. that needed) in addressing them than those allocated for other conditions that might introduce operational challenge. Blame, if it needs to be called that, would go to MCPS central's failure to provide the requisite/relative differential resource support.

We'll just pull our remaining child from MCPS come HS.

The content planning for programming changes to middle schools starts next year. That is the same time when implementation for high school programming changes are supposed to be planned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be fooled - these regional programs are just MCPS/BOE way of decreasing the furor around the boundary studies. When Blake opened, MCPS created the NEC so that they wouldn't have to make hard boundary lines. Same with the reopening of Northwood, which created the DCC. Instead of making tough boundary decisions that no one every likes, it was easier to just create the consortia - parents feel they have a choice and much of the heat is taken off MCPS/BOE.

Skip ahead to 2025. There are two new high schools opening (Crown and Woodward). Boundary studies are done and people are up in arms about the proposals. MCPS is going back to the old playbook and making countywide regions (essentially consortia) so the boundary lines are soft and not hard - thereby lessening the complaints about the boundaries.

News flash though - the consortia overall have been failures. While many parents and students have been happy about being given some choice, the consortia have destroyed the community feel of the high schools. Transportation costs have skyrocketed. Many of the signature programs are not that special - maybe a few extra sections or courses offered due to increased interest from students with similar interests consolidating at a school.

Maybe the new regional model will be more successful, but more than likely it will only result in increased transportation costs, less community feel of schools, challenges with participation in extracurriculars and lots of issues with implementation. Hopefully I am wrong though.

If the DCC and NEC have been failures, now the whole county will be failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be fooled - these regional programs are just MCPS/BOE way of decreasing the furor around the boundary studies. When Blake opened, MCPS created the NEC so that they wouldn't have to make hard boundary lines. Same with the reopening of Northwood, which created the DCC. Instead of making tough boundary decisions that no one every likes, it was easier to just create the consortia - parents feel they have a choice and much of the heat is taken off MCPS/BOE.

Skip ahead to 2025. There are two new high schools opening (Crown and Woodward). Boundary studies are done and people are up in arms about the proposals. MCPS is going back to the old playbook and making countywide regions (essentially consortia) so the boundary lines are soft and not hard - thereby lessening the complaints about the boundaries.

News flash though - the consortia overall have been failures. While many parents and students have been happy about being given some choice, the consortia have destroyed the community feel of the high schools. Transportation costs have skyrocketed. Many of the signature programs are not that special - maybe a few extra sections or courses offered due to increased interest from students with similar interests consolidating at a school.

Maybe the new regional model will be more successful, but more than likely it will only result in increased transportation costs, less community feel of schools, challenges with participation in extracurriculars and lots of issues with implementation. Hopefully I am wrong though.

And the magnets and RMIB are collateral damage in all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be fooled - these regional programs are just MCPS/BOE way of decreasing the furor around the boundary studies. When Blake opened, MCPS created the NEC so that they wouldn't have to make hard boundary lines. Same with the reopening of Northwood, which created the DCC. Instead of making tough boundary decisions that no one every likes, it was easier to just create the consortia - parents feel they have a choice and much of the heat is taken off MCPS/BOE.

Skip ahead to 2025. There are two new high schools opening (Crown and Woodward). Boundary studies are done and people are up in arms about the proposals. MCPS is going back to the old playbook and making countywide regions (essentially consortia) so the boundary lines are soft and not hard - thereby lessening the complaints about the boundaries.

News flash though - the consortia overall have been failures. While many parents and students have been happy about being given some choice, the consortia have destroyed the community feel of the high schools. Transportation costs have skyrocketed. Many of the signature programs are not that special - maybe a few extra sections or courses offered due to increased interest from students with similar interests consolidating at a school.

Maybe the new regional model will be more successful, but more than likely it will only result in increased transportation costs, less community feel of schools, challenges with participation in extracurriculars and lots of issues with implementation. Hopefully I am wrong though.

If the DCC and NEC have been failures, now the whole county will be failing.

The new regions aren't like the consortia. There will be no process enabling widespread school choice. Just a limited number of students will be accepted to regional programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be fooled - these regional programs are just MCPS/BOE way of decreasing the furor around the boundary studies. When Blake opened, MCPS created the NEC so that they wouldn't have to make hard boundary lines. Same with the reopening of Northwood, which created the DCC. Instead of making tough boundary decisions that no one every likes, it was easier to just create the consortia - parents feel they have a choice and much of the heat is taken off MCPS/BOE.

Skip ahead to 2025. There are two new high schools opening (Crown and Woodward). Boundary studies are done and people are up in arms about the proposals. MCPS is going back to the old playbook and making countywide regions (essentially consortia) so the boundary lines are soft and not hard - thereby lessening the complaints about the boundaries.

News flash though - the consortia overall have been failures. While many parents and students have been happy about being given some choice, the consortia have destroyed the community feel of the high schools. Transportation costs have skyrocketed. Many of the signature programs are not that special - maybe a few extra sections or courses offered due to increased interest from students with similar interests consolidating at a school.

Maybe the new regional model will be more successful, but more than likely it will only result in increased transportation costs, less community feel of schools, challenges with participation in extracurriculars and lots of issues with implementation. Hopefully I am wrong though.

Not true about the dcc.