Please be aware of what is about to go away:

[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.

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

Couldn't care less about this particular change. They serve a vanishingly small number of students who will already be successful wherever they go and who will inevitably have access to high-level classes ( = instant cohort) anyway. And besides, most of these (including the SMCS thst everyone knows is the only thing on the planet that actually matters /s) are going to be carved out and kept in some form. There are a lot of other programs that are instead going to be genuinely jeopardized or dissolved. Even if they are brought back at some other location, it will take years to make it work. What I feel for are the huge number of students caught in the middle whose educations will just be a litany of aftereffects and patch jobs.

[Anonymous]

People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

[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.

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

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

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

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

+100. They are making bold assumptions about what teachers are/are not qualified to do with ZERO knowledge about teacher’s background or what teacher’s themselves have a desire to teach and thus might be willing to be undergo training around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

Winner of the empathy award right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1294133.page
Last Thursday's BOE meeting. 1:27:30 testimony provides evidences why transportation costs will sky-rocketing and transportation time is not going to be reduced. It has been proven in Dr. Taylor previously served school district with only 1/7 of the current proposed program size and implementation speed.

Laura Stewart is the only BOE member that commented on this testimony and asked mcps for more data (not explicitly asking about more comprehensive transportation estimates). I've written several emails requesting a transportation estimate and also submitted through the online "ask a question" button. No one responds so far. What else do you suggest us do in order to make them hear and respond?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1294133.page
Last Thursday's BOE meeting. 1:27:30 testimony provides evidences why transportation costs will sky-rocketing and transportation time is not going to be reduced. It has been proven in Dr. Taylor previously served school district with only 1/7 of the current proposed program size and implementation speed.

Laura Stewart is the only BOE member that commented on this testimony and asked mcps for more data (not explicitly asking about more comprehensive transportation estimates). I've written several emails requesting a transportation estimate and also submitted through the online "ask a question" button. No one responds so far. What else do you suggest us do in order to make them hear and respond?

By the way, my email requests were not just sent to the common BOE email. I cc'ed every BOE board member, sup, chief academic officer and deputy chief of school bus transportation. I'm vocal and don't mind to be thought dramatic. I'm asking legitimate question just hope to make someone realize that they can't pretend they don't see anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1294133.page
Last Thursday's BOE meeting. 1:27:30 testimony provides evidences why transportation costs will sky-rocketing and transportation time is not going to be reduced. It has been proven in Dr. Taylor previously served school district with only 1/7 of the current proposed program size and implementation speed.

Laura Stewart is the only BOE member that commented on this testimony and asked mcps for more data (not explicitly asking about more comprehensive transportation estimates). I've written several emails requesting a transportation estimate and also submitted through the online "ask a question" button. No one responds so far. What else do you suggest us do in order to make them hear and respond?

Laura is not the only person who has asked about transportation. Several board members have. I suggest you send in questions, attend the program analysis and/or boundary study meetings. I also suggest you recognize that transportation is not solely a MCPS issue and this start talking to people like the county executive and county council so that investments are made in public transportation that aligns with school times and increased population and the spread of population. And when folks bring up ideas around transportations (bus stations, train stations, etc) ensure you aren’t a NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1294133.page
Last Thursday's BOE meeting. 1:27:30 testimony provides evidences why transportation costs will sky-rocketing and transportation time is not going to be reduced. It has been proven in Dr. Taylor previously served school district with only 1/7 of the current proposed program size and implementation speed.

Laura Stewart is the only BOE member that commented on this testimony and asked mcps for more data (not explicitly asking about more comprehensive transportation estimates). I've written several emails requesting a transportation estimate and also submitted through the online "ask a question" button. No one responds so far. What else do you suggest us do in order to make them hear and respond?

Laura is not the only person who has asked about transportation. Several board members have. I suggest you send in questions, attend the program analysis and/or boundary study meetings. I also suggest you recognize that transportation is not solely a MCPS issue and this start talking to people like the county executive and county council so that investments are made in public transportation that aligns with school times and increased population and the spread of population. And when folks bring up ideas around transportations (bus stations, train stations, etc) ensure you aren’t a NIMBY.

Thanks. I have full-time job, need to take care of my students and need to take care of children after-hours. My time is not unlimited, and I hope people have similar concerns can be more vocal.

Yang raised excellent questions regarding transportation concern back in June when the regional model was first proposed. Unfortunately, just like every BOE meeting, there's zero follow-up afterwards. Central office can get away with their extremely naive calculation of added bus scenario (middle-school level combination theory) and every BOE member seemed to be convinced and happy.

[Anonymous]

In other words, BOE said they are "data driven", and ask for more data to support any decision, but seldomly check the data quality or meaning. As someone working with data for their whole life, I can't remember how many times I'd LMAO for the wrong data or manipulated data CO supplied and drew the conclusion upon.

One example: CO claimed that MCPS education quality is well-balanced by showing the percentage of students with GPA>=3.0 across all HSs, pretending no one knows how inflating GPA is in MCPS. And BOE bought in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People’s anger around boundary studies is completely overblown. Schools are not conveyed with the house. This has become such a problem that a bill had to be passed so that language was included in housing contracts just so it can be said you were told. Boundaries change occur to deal with the realities of population and available resources.

If you have issue on valid basis, like hugely increased bus time then speak up in board testimony or post a question/comment to the Boundary Study or Program Analysis. Otherwise I wish people would get over themselves.

+1000

[Anonymous]

The Einstein teacher made a good point about the change to a regional structure’s potentially devastating impact on their arts program. I do think MCPS’s sudden announcement of this extreme plan right before the end of school, and attempt to pass it in December, is likely going to have some very negative unforeseen collateral impacts that should be carefully considered -before- a regional program is rushed through.

For the same reason it’s not good to wildly cut federal agencies without careful consideration, it’s good to conduct proper analysis before making extreme decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Couldn't care less about this particular change. They serve a vanishingly small number of students who will already be successful wherever they go and who will inevitably have access to high-level classes ( = instant cohort) anyway. And besides, most of these (including the SMCS thst everyone knows is the only thing on the planet that actually matters /s) are going to be carved out and kept in some form. There are a lot of other programs that are instead going to be genuinely jeopardized or dissolved. Even if they are brought back at some other location, it will take years to make it work. What I feel for are the huge number of students caught in the middle whose educations will just be a litany of aftereffects and patch jobs.

But, actually, the kids at the magnets are at the magnets because they don't have peers at the home school. Or if they do have peers, it is a very small number and not enough to offer the kind of high level teaching that occurs in the magnet. Yes, in high school they may have access to some AP and/or IB, but for the kids who would have gone to the magnet, it's really not enough. Maybe those kids will have to dual enroll instead, and if that is the case then those kids won't end up back at the homeschool.

If you really believe that the peer pool exists for a county-wide magnet at each school, a better plan would have been to start one in each region and see how many kids opted into the curriculum regionally if they weren't accepted at the central magnet. Then over time you would build the confidence in the regional magnets and you could phase out the central magnet. The problem is that the Poolesville experience illustrates that there are other problems besides the number of peers. As I understand it, that program has had trouble finding qualified teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Couldn't care less about this particular change. They serve a vanishingly small number of students who will already be successful wherever they go and who will inevitably have access to high-level classes ( = instant cohort) anyway. And besides, most of these (including the SMCS thst everyone knows is the only thing on the planet that actually matters /s) are going to be carved out and kept in some form. There are a lot of other programs that are instead going to be genuinely jeopardized or dissolved. Even if they are brought back at some other location, it will take years to make it work. What I feel for are the huge number of students caught in the middle whose educations will just be a litany of aftereffects and patch jobs.

But, actually, the kids at the magnets are at the magnets because they don't have peers at the home school. Or if they do have peers, it is a very small number and not enough to offer the kind of high level teaching that occurs in the magnet. Yes, in high school they may have access to some AP and/or IB, but for the kids who would have gone to the magnet, it's really not enough. Maybe those kids will have to dual enroll instead, and if that is the case then those kids won't end up back at the homeschool.

If you really believe that the peer pool exists for a county-wide magnet at each school, a better plan would have been to start one in each region and see how many kids opted into the curriculum regionally if they weren't accepted at the central magnet. Then over time you would build the confidence in the regional magnets and you could phase out the central magnet. The problem is that the Poolesville experience illustrates that there are other problems besides the number of peers. As I understand it, that program has had trouble finding qualified teachers.

Dual enrollment is a scheduling nightmare earlier than senior year and then there is a transportation issue. Our kids just go without.

[Anonymous]

Give me a break. The Blair magnet serves more than 400 students, it has served thousands of moco families well over the years, stabilized and improved the largest and most diverse high school in Maryland (Go Blazers), and brought national rep to the school district. Pretty good ROI. I would care about that collateral damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break. The Blair magnet serves more than 400 students, it has served thousands of moco families well over the years, stabilized and improved the largest and most diverse high school in Maryland (Go Blazers), and brought national rep to the school district. Pretty good ROI. I would care about that collateral damage.

I don't, actually. I don't think STEM needs any more help in our educational system at the literal expense of so many other worthy - and necessary - areas of study. I don't think we need to be pouring resources into over-accelerating mathematics when colleges so often need to redo or remediate anyway. And I don't think it's going to be catastrophic for the county to extend some version of SMCS across 5-6 smaller zones instead of 2 larger ones. There will still be plenty of opportunity for advanced study.