Parents of current 7th graders - what do you think about the 6 regional magnets

[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:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.

So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s actual talent that MCPS could figure out how to make just about everyone in the county mad from Poolesville to Bethesda to RMIB to Blair to NEC/DCC about their programming model.

Not sure what the talent is useful for but it’s talent for sure.

[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:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.

So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process.

DP here. I have to say MCPS occasionally "listens" to what they want to listen and make small but more disastrous refinement. I gave a feedback in one of the Oct. virtual meeting that Region 2 with Wheaton HS was the only region that had real engineering program/curriculum and anyone in that region can apply to. The sample STEM curriculum shared back then only contained two SMCS entry-level engineering courses. Guess what happened? In November, they added interest-based engineering programs to every region, removed the two SMCS entry-level engineering courses, and maintained the exact same budget estimate. They keep on adding or tweaking programs without considering any logistics/staff/transportation/student cohort/etc associated with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Do you have a source that shows it's guaranteed? Mcps has made an awful lot of "guarantees" in my 25 years as a teacher then parent here. The slide deck referenced here clearly shows disparities in the programs offered- Global, SMACS, and CAP to name a few.

Thanks for sharing. Why would this keep happening at MCPS? I get the sense that no superintendent is ever given a chance to succeed *because* of this persistent lack of trust.

I understand that there might have been bad experiences in the past, but we have a whole new superintendent now. So why is the distrust continuing? Have you observed anything concerning under superintendent Taylor’s leadership? I read on here about a childcare issue, but haven’t seen evidence to support it. Anything else?

Honest question - have you ever had a job? No, a new leader does not just get a blank slate when previous leadership has lied to the community. There's a lengthy trust-building process, inclusive of cleaning house. Taylor has not built trust. He did not clean house, and these sweeping changes have been undertaken in a way that has shocked the community.

Take the proposed closing of SSIMS. That had NEVER been on the table and suddenly materialized as a fait accompli in Phase 2 of the so-called "iterative process."

If you are going to do something devastating to the community like shut down a walkable neighborhood middle school, there should be extensive community discussion first.

[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:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.

So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process.

DP here. I have to say MCPS occasionally "listens" to what they want to listen and make small but more disastrous refinement. I gave a feedback in one of the Oct. virtual meeting that Region 2 with Wheaton HS was the only region that had real engineering program/curriculum and anyone in that region can apply to. The sample STEM curriculum shared back then only contained two SMCS entry-level engineering courses. Guess what happened? In November, they added interest-based engineering programs to every region, removed the two SMCS entry-level engineering courses, and maintained the exact same budget estimate. They keep on adding or tweaking programs without considering any logistics/staff/transportation/student cohort/etc associated with it.

To the pro-MCPS poster: This. You're patting yourself on the back with this is so-called iterative approach, yet this means this process and the details will not be ready for who knows how long. Did it occur to you that this same very proposal is going on a PR tour, being built into the boundary studies, and the BOE VOTES on this come March 2026. Where else in the real world does a half-baked idea become reality without having at least looked at all the details - staffing, bussing, cost, etc. But for you, it's ok that all of this will be unknown. Bravo. Who cares about 7th graders and younger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So … every time a poster does not use quote feature or disagrees and/or provides evidence that they have been sharing false information on this platform, someone on here just claims that they are a “staffer” and dismisses what is stated instead of engaging in dialogue?

Then, the response to all of that is a “song” reiterating information we all now know to be false with someone offering coffee? That is not productive conversation.

Looks like if these folks were on the design team, MCPS would never be able to have any dialogue. If folks on the design team felt that they were silenced, why not share what you were trying to convey here?

The concerns that the design team brought up have been well-covered on DCUM. We know no more than anyone else at this point. That creating greater access to high-quality programming sounds good, but that central office isn't putting in the work to ensure that the programming is actually high quality -- they are using a slipshod approach without doing the meaningful analysis needed to create strong programs. Lots of members of the design team brought up these concerns early and rather than trying to address them, central office moved it forward without changes. Now, central office is facing blowback from many community members--blowback that could have been mitigated if they had actually worked with the design team to make changes to the plan to address the concerns, which would have taken time and effort to create a solid plan.

Would it be fair and accurate to say that this is a complete list of the concerns of the design team - the concerns that felt silenced - along with evidence-based rebuttal arguments?

1. “What MCPS is doing looks good on paper, but isn’t practical.”

The push to expand access is grounded in a comprehensive external review by Education Strategy Group (ESG) — commissioned by Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in 2017 — which concluded that career and technical education (CTE) had been “marginalized” even while many students could benefit. (The Washington Post)

The plan is based on district-wide commitment to evaluation and improvement: MCPS recently approved its annual program evaluation plan, institutionalizing ongoing assessment of programs’ design, implementation, and outcomes. (BoardDocs)

Transparency and public accountability are baked in: MCPS posts meeting agendas and materials (including the FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan) on its BoardDocs site.
The plan is evidence-based and structured.

2. “MCPS is being tone-deaf and rushing a rollout.”

MCPS has already shown flexibility: legacy students are being “grandfathered in” (allowed to complete older programs), even though that constrains capacity for expansion. This contradicts the idea of a “rushed, all-or-nothing” change.

The expansion plan responds to a 2017 report that urged major changes to CTE and career-readiness — meaning this isn’t a rash decision but a long-standing recommendation the district is finally implementing. (The Washington Post).

The phased approach — marketing of new programs, stakeholder engagement, multiple phases based on demand and performance — shows deliberate rollout, not a hasty push. (Montgomery County Public Schools)

3. “Why expand if the rollout won’t be perfect?”
Perfection as a pre-condition has stalled meaningful access for years. Many students have waited since at least 2016 (or earlier) — some of them missing out completely. Delaying further only prolongs structural inequities.

The 2017 external review underscored that continuing as-is meant large numbers of students would reach graduation without meaningful career-readiness or credentials — even as local employers report shortages of qualified workers. (The Washington Post).

Expanding access with a built-in evaluation and accountability framework (see below) is a responsible step — better than waiting indefinitely for a “perfect” system that, historically, has never materialized.

4. “There is no plan to ensure rigor.”

MCPS adopted a Program Evaluation Work Plan (FY 2025, updated for FY 2026) that defines evaluation methods: process/implementation evaluations (did the program reach intended students? was it delivered as designed?) and outcome evaluations (did participants achieve the intended results?). (BoardDocs).

Programs will be assessed against district strategic goals and performance targets. Only programs that meet the rigor and effectiveness criteria should be continued or expanded. (BoardDocs)

This is not “expand first, check later.” It is “expand with built-in measurement and accountability.”

5. “Families won’t be prepared to choose STEM/CTE programs by 2027.”
As part of the broader redesign, MCPS plans to offer early outreach and information to families and students, so that interest in STEM/CTE can start before high school. Indeed, the strategic plan for high-school programming included extensive stakeholder input (students, parents/guardians, educators, community and business/higher-ed partners). (Montgomery County Public Schools)

The evaluation system tracks not only outcomes but also implementation — meaning MCPS must show evidence of outreach, counseling, awareness campaigns, and early-pipeline engagement before continuation. (BoardDocs)

With public transparency and reporting, the community can monitor whether principals and schools actually engage families in the years leading up to 2027 — and call out gaps if they appear.

6. “Many college graduates are underemployed — how will MCPS avoid creating more underemployed graduates with expanded programs?”

The 2017 ESG review notes that middle-skill jobs — those requiring more than high school but less than a 4-year degree — are a large and growing share of local labor-market demand. For many of these jobs, industry credentials or associate-level training can lead to income levels comparable to or exceeding many bachelor’s-degree-type jobs. (The Washington Post).

By aligning new CTE/STEM programs with real employer demand, offering certifications, dual-enrollment, and apprenticeship pathways — rather than defaulting to four-year degree tracks — MCPS can improve the odds that graduates attain meaningful employment. That’s exactly what the 2017 review recommended. (The Washington Post)

Because MCPS now has an evaluation plan that measures outcomes, the district can track credential attainment, post-graduation employment, and earnings (or partner with state workforce data) — and rework or cut programs that do not lead to good outcomes. (BoardDocs)

7. “Expanding access harms current students in the system.”
MCPS has already committed to grandfathering current program participants — meaning expansion doesn’t take away opportunities from them.

The goal isn’t to reduce quality, but to increase access. Expansion under oversight and evaluation doesn’t undercut existing opportunities; it broadens them.

Because the previous system systematically under-served many students (especially those from underserved communities), expansion with equity and accountability is a correction — not a redistribution of privilege.

8. “Why not delay another year to sort out all the details?”
Delay has already cost students: for years, many have been waiting for access, with no alternative resources. Another delay means more denied opportunities.

The evaluation and accountability infrastructure is already in place (FY 2025/2026 Evaluation Plan), meaning the district can monitor and course-correct as needed. (BoardDocs)

Delay often becomes indefinite — and communities that most need access continue to be shut out. The time to act is now.

Key Source Links
* “Report urges major changes in career education at Maryland school system” — The Washington Post, Sept 12, 2017 (The Washington Post)
* Education Strategy Group’s resource on strengthening career readiness in Montgomery County (Education Strategy Group)
* MCPS Career Readiness Action Plan (following the 2017 review) (Montgomery County Public Schools)
* MCPS FY 2025 Program Evaluation Work Plan (approved Sept 26, 2024) (BoardDocs)
* MCPS public BoardDocs page for FY 2026 Program Evaluation Plan (agenda/discussion)

I didn't even read this whole thing after I saw the lies in the very first few answers... could tell this would all be BS (maybe even AI-written BS?) You may be able to fool the Board and the uninformed public but you can't fool those of us who have been paying attention.

Also, you missed several questions, including but not limited to "Why didn't MCPS consider equity in program placement and why are they benefiting rich schools over poorer schools in the placement of academic programs?"' and "How can MCPS pretend this proposal is equitable when they won't even guarantee neighborhood bus stops for the program buses?" and "Why is MCPS lying in their presentations to the Board if this is really so great?"

Thank you, PP, for adding your concerns and feedback. Please continue to brainstorm any and all issues you have with the program rollout or even the sources listed if you question them.

Thank you again.

If you really want feedback you would reconvene the design team (like a sucker I will still come back and give you as much more of my time as you ask for, because I so strongly support the vision of what you're trying to do and am so deeply concerned about what will happen if you implement it as currently planned without revisions.)

Or at least you could create even one feedback form for the public where you invite people to make suggestions and tell you what they genuinely think of your proposals. This has still not happened even once throughout this whole process.

Until those things happen, it is clear that you are not actually interested in feedback, only in pretending you have collected some. But it is not too late to change that.

I’m just an MCPS parent who heard the commotion about MCPS “getting rid of programs”, got concerned for my own kids and started doing some digging around and posing questions directly to MCPS.

Not a staffer.
Not Jeannie Franklin.
Not an MCPS employee in any shape or form.

And so in doing your "research" you decided to take on all of Taylor and MCPS's talking points and decided they were 100% right and the community was wrong?

So far, I’m very impressed with MCPS under Dr. Taylor’s leadership. So yes, I trust them more than I have trusted previous superintendents (and I can be cynical).

They have consistently listened. They’ve consistently taken action in response to community feedback. That level of responsiveness is usually challenging for a large school district like ours.

The biggest issue I see here is lack of trust from previous experiences as well as a misunderstanding of how iterative systems design processes work.

I cannot believe that any real person, inside or out of MCPS, thinks that they have done a good job of listening and taking action in response to feedback. Either you are being paid to say that or you are profoundly misinformed.

I have been trying desperately to give feedback-- like, spending multiple hours a week for months trying to figure out how best to do this (because I want the regional model to succeed and can see how much it's on track to fail)-- but MCPS has not been providing any opportunities to give feedback so I have nothing to show for my time but sending unanswered emails and leaving post-it notes at an in-person session in November when it was clear we were too late to change anything. (And also clear how tragically the lack of feedback has harmed the process, as Jeannie Franklin and other MCPS staff responded to very basic and important information and considerations as if they'd never heard them before, and then promptly continued to ignore them in the November update.). For an ordinary parent or student or teacher, there is basically zero way to give feedback and have input considered.

The description in bold also applies to all of our design team meetings. A waste of everyone's time.

[Anonymous]

New poster who was also on the design team. I wish I could have those hours back.

And I do not appreciate the scolding tone of staff emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster who was also on the design team. I wish I could have those hours back.

And I do not appreciate the scolding tone of staff emails.

can you all draft a joint letter? At minimum, to ask them to respect community if they want to take people's time without compensating them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster who was also on the design team. I wish I could have those hours back.

And I do not appreciate the scolding tone of staff emails.

can you all draft a joint letter? At minimum, to ask them to respect community if they want to take people's time without compensating them?

I am on the design team and would love to see and sign a letter like this. I am tired of MCPS using our names to the Board of Ed pretending that we are part of some real process of community feedback, and that everyone who opposes the way they're doing this are opposed to the regional approach as a whole or afraid of change or an unrealistic perfectionist. Most of us think there is a lot of promise in this model but both the process and the current outcomes are infuriating. If the Board is going to pass this, they should at least understand how deeply resistant and honestly almost hostile Taylor and MCPS staff have been to gathering feedback and considering the opinions of others besides themselves.

I'm just a nobody so it doesn't mKe sense for me to start it-- I would suggest that some of the somebodies who know eachother work together on something and then use their networks (which I do not have) to get other design team members onboard-- but I would love to sign something if it's created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster who was also on the design team. I wish I could have those hours back.

And I do not appreciate the scolding tone of staff emails.

can you all draft a joint letter? At minimum, to ask them to respect community if they want to take people's time without compensating them?

I am on the design team and would love to see and sign a letter like this. I am tired of MCPS using our names to the Board of Ed pretending that we are part of some real process of community feedback, and that everyone who opposes the way they're doing this are opposed to the regional approach as a whole or afraid of change or an unrealistic perfectionist. Most of us think there is a lot of promise in this model but both the process and the current outcomes are infuriating. If the Board is going to pass this, they should at least understand how deeply resistant and honestly almost hostile Taylor and MCPS staff have been to gathering feedback and considering the opinions of others besides themselves.

I'm just a nobody so it doesn't mKe sense for me to start it-- I would suggest that some of the somebodies who know eachother work together on something and then use their networks (which I do not have) to get other design team members onboard-- but I would love to sign something if it's created.

A bunch of you team members should contact Nicole Asbury at The Washington Post. She just wrote a story about this topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 the "people who don't like this are just dumb and don't understand" is very on brand for MCPS CO

Iterative system design process means that we start with a general overall design and then refine it. For example, a sculptor starts with measurements or a general outline, then gradually adds in the next round of details.

Since this is an iterative design using community input, the details can change flexibly as more information becomes available.

In the case of MCPS program implementation, you get a general sense that access and transportation would be improved through a six-region plan with programs that fall under the various program themes, but you would not yet expect a full breakdown of details like exact cost, exact curriculum, teachers, etc until further in the process.

It’s a simple concept we all use in sculpting/sewing/sketching but sometimes what may seem obvious to some is not always obvious to everyone.

But the initial design was riddled with errors, lacked insight into individual schools and their offerings, and didn’t account for documented demand (or lack thereof) for particular course progressions. MCPS didn’t analyze current programs to identify strengths, they didn't examine their own failures with past programs, and they were resistant to feedback from staff and parents who had experience with both success and programs.

This wasn’t a process of improving a solid concept. It’s been a process of deploying multiple sets of massive revisions to deal with the profound design flaws.

[Anonymous]

*experience with both successful and unsuccessful programs.

[Anonymous]

DP - Also, when I hear "iterative" I don't think just iterating on PowerPoint, but actually slowing implementing and observing how things go on the ground and making adjustments as needed. Not launching 97 different programs simultaneously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 the "people who don't like this are just dumb and don't understand" is very on brand for MCPS CO

Iterative system design process means that we start with a general overall design and then refine it. For example, a sculptor starts with measurements or a general outline, then gradually adds in the next round of details.

Since this is an iterative design using community input, the details can change flexibly as more information becomes available.

In the case of MCPS program implementation, you get a general sense that access and transportation would be improved through a six-region plan with programs that fall under the various program themes, but you would not yet expect a full breakdown of details like exact cost, exact curriculum, teachers, etc until further in the process.

It’s a simple concept we all use in sculpting/sewing/sketching but sometimes what may seem obvious to some is not always obvious to everyone.

But the initial design was riddled with errors, lacked insight into individual schools and their offerings, and didn’t account for documented demand (or lack thereof) for particular course progressions. MCPS didn’t analyze current programs to identify strengths, they didn't examine their own failures with past programs, and they were resistant to feedback from staff and parents who had experience with both success and programs.

This wasn’t a process of improving a solid concept. It’s been a process of deploying multiple sets of massive revisions to deal with the profound design flaws.

+1 There are many people in addition to the design team members that have spent many hours trying to understand the proposals and their potential impact on our high school cluster and on organizing and advocacy.

It's incredibly stressful for our communities to watch CO staff run around proposing crazy things left and right and then having to try to somehow reach them to explain why what they are proposing is crazy. Community members should not have to spend hours and hours trying to address flaws that would never have been there had they been proactive in engaging and working with communities and school staff while developing their proposals. What they are doing is trying to ram through what they want and giving lip service to the people they upset the most. This is an exhausting and frankly abusive process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1 the "people who don't like this are just dumb and don't understand" is very on brand for MCPS CO

Iterative system design process means that we start with a general overall design and then refine it. For example, a sculptor starts with measurements or a general outline, then gradually adds in the next round of details.

Since this is an iterative design using community input, the details can change flexibly as more information becomes available.

In the case of MCPS program implementation, you get a general sense that access and transportation would be improved through a six-region plan with programs that fall under the various program themes, but you would not yet expect a full breakdown of details like exact cost, exact curriculum, teachers, etc until further in the process.

It’s a simple concept we all use in sculpting/sewing/sketching but sometimes what may seem obvious to some is not always obvious to everyone.

But the initial design was riddled with errors, lacked insight into individual schools and their offerings, and didn’t account for documented demand (or lack thereof) for particular course progressions. MCPS didn’t analyze current programs to identify strengths, they didn't examine their own failures with past programs, and they were resistant to feedback from staff and parents who had experience with both success and programs.

This wasn’t a process of improving a solid concept. It’s been a process of deploying multiple sets of massive revisions to deal with the profound design flaws.

+1 There are many people in addition to the design team members that have spent many hours trying to understand the proposals and their potential impact on our high school cluster and on organizing and advocacy.

It's incredibly stressful for our communities to watch CO staff run around proposing crazy things left and right and then having to try to somehow reach them to explain why what they are proposing is crazy. Community members should not have to spend hours and hours trying to address flaws that would never have been there had they been proactive in engaging and working with communities and school staff while developing their proposals. What they are doing is trying to ram through what they want and giving lip service to the people they upset the most. This is an exhausting and frankly abusive process.

I’m glad you are doing it for your community. I feel the same way and am doing it for mine.