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

[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.

There are ways to go around the people who are not providing the feedback you request and ask for the information from others.

For example, email the shared accountability team and ask if they have or know where specific data can be found and reviewed. cc the BOE and all external design team members.

Send an e-mail with all of the design team members copied asking for a new meeting to review the most recent documents such as the pathways to discuss concerns and provide suggestions for improvement. The Director is relatively new so she would be someone to contact directly. Copy the BOE.

Organize a series of meeting with MCEA HS representatives to review the pathways and gather feedback(concerns, questions, recommendations).

Reach out to the Gifted Ed and Curriculum committees for MCCPTA to garner support for some meetings that are chaired by them so that the format is more open and illicits and publishes feedback.

The Program Analysis team will either come around or be embarrassed when the data is presented without them and is more thorough.

[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.

We know what iterative design is. That doesn't address the numerous concerns described in this and other threads. They already have defined a timeline and the dissolution of the DCC and NEC. Kids will be applying for these programs in one year and there is no budget for them. This is insane.

A previous poster complaining about MCPS appeared to state that they did not know what an iterative process was, so someone took their personal time to ensure that the term was explained clearly using a simple analogy. You even seem to want to attack the commenter who bothered to explain it. That’s why people think you’re bellicose, warlike and ready to attack over anything.

[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.

We know what iterative design is. That doesn't address the numerous concerns described in this and other threads. They already have defined a timeline and the dissolution of the DCC and NEC. Kids will be applying for these programs in one year and there is no budget for them. This is insane.

A previous poster complaining about MCPS appeared to state that they did not know what an iterative process was, so someone took their personal time to ensure that the term was explained clearly using a simple analogy. You even seem to want to attack the commenter who bothered to explain it. That’s why people think you’re bellicose, warlike and ready to attack over anything.

Wow, that escalated quickly.

If that PP was responding to a question they should quote it. PP responded to me. Most of us know what iterative design is. I actually have no idea which post you are referring to and it's so bizarre for you to attack me like this. But not surprising, you can't actually address the major concerns I and others have spelled out multiple times so you resort to personal attacks.

[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.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

[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.

+1
Thank you!

[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.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

DP

Omg, there is so much wrong with everything you wrote above and you know it.

Dismissing certain stakeholders because you perceive them to be too wealthy to matter would be compelling if:

- MCPS didn't constantly cater to the wealthiest stakeholders including with the current boundary study
- MCPS made any significant efforts to engage with families with lower incomes or even just think about equity in any real way. As it stands, when asked about racial or socioeconomic equity, the response from CO staff is the typical "Thank you for this feedback, we are going to have to consider that!" Which is absolutely appalling.

[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.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

If MCPS were truly fighting for families, they would help students achieve proficiency, yet many are not, in English or math.

Disagree with poorest families with highest student loans. Many low-income students get support like Pell/SEOG Grants or MHEC state grants. There are also local scholarships like Rales-O'Neill. In contrast, I also know plenty of well-to-do who still carry significant student loans.

"Piece-meal" is an interesting word choice. That's how I would describe the proposed regional model.

IDK why you want to punish students who achieve proficiency, as if somehow they are the cause as to why other students are not proficient. MCPS should be looking at itself in the mirror to consider why many of its students aren't able to perform.

[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.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

How is MCPS "fighting for families who are still unaware of RMIB and dual enrollment" and "standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room." If these families are still unaware of programs and proposals, then it seems as if MCPS is speaking for them without seeking their input.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Not PP in particular, but the slew of insults on here makes it more time-consuming to read the posts.

Anyway, here’s the link in case anyone else wants to understand why some in the community are not exactly taking a liking to Dr. Taylor’s leadership:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/11/25/mcps-teacher-state-school-board-member/

Thank you for bringing up this point.

[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.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

Thank you Jeannie Franklin.

[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: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?

MCPS has indicated that they have looked at those factors and are ready to go. Perhaps they are only sharing details once they know for sure?

Anyway, last month they shared a preliminary plan for both transportation and cost. I’ve shared it repeatedly on here, but still find that I’m responding to the same talking points and it’s making MCPS look better, imo.

[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: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?

MCPS has indicated that they have looked at those factors and are ready to go. Perhaps they are only sharing details once they know for sure?

Anyway, last month they shared a preliminary plan for both transportation and cost. I’ve shared it repeatedly on here, but still find that I’m responding to the same talking points and it’s making MCPS look better, imo.

I’ve also shared on this board that the transportation cost estimates in November updates still followed the HS-HS central stop model, which is 1/4-1/6 of the realist costs of DCC or RMIB bus routes. How does this central stop model take equity access into the design at all?

[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: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.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

If MCPS were truly fighting for families, they would help students achieve proficiency, yet many are not, in English or math.

Disagree with poorest families with highest student loans. Many low-income students get support like Pell/SEOG Grants or MHEC state grants. There are also local scholarships like Rales-O'Neill. In contrast, I also know plenty of well-to-do who still carry significant student loans.

"Piece-meal" is an interesting word choice. That's how I would describe the proposed regional model.

IDK why you want to punish students who achieve proficiency, as if somehow they are the cause as to why other students are not proficient. MCPS should be looking at itself in the mirror to consider why many of its students aren't able to perform.

As far as student loans, the current administration is planning significant cuts to the Pell grant, PAYE repayment plans and PLUS loans for graduate students. Students from households already struggling financially will not likely get assistance from their parents, so IB/the dual enrollment program is more crucial for them.

There was a PP poster explaining iterative systems with continual improvement, but perhaps it still isn’t enough.

PP did *not* mention lack of proficiency, though it’s an important topic currently under discussion in other DCUM threads. Not sure where “punishing students who achieve proficiency” even came from.

[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: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?

MCPS has indicated that they have looked at those factors and are ready to go. Perhaps they are only sharing details once they know for sure?

Anyway, last month they shared a preliminary plan for both transportation and cost. I’ve shared it repeatedly on here, but still find that I’m responding to the same talking points and it’s making MCPS look better, imo.

I’ve also shared on this board that the transportation cost estimates in November updates still followed the HS-HS central stop model, which is 1/4-1/6 of the realist costs of DCC or RMIB bus routes. How does this central stop model take equity access into the design at all?

What model do you think is better and why?

[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: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?

MCPS has indicated that they have looked at those factors and are ready to go. Perhaps they are only sharing details once they know for sure?

Anyway, last month they shared a preliminary plan for both transportation and cost. I’ve shared it repeatedly on here, but still find that I’m responding to the same talking points and it’s making MCPS look better, imo.

I’ve also shared on this board that the transportation cost estimates in November updates still followed the HS-HS central stop model, which is 1/4-1/6 of the realist costs of DCC or RMIB bus routes. How does this central stop model take equity access into the design at all?

What model do you think is better and why?

DP you haven't been listening at all, have you?