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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

[Anonymous]

I have a seventh grader and don’t believe the plans will actually come to fruition - they will be programs in name only. It’s all smoke and mirrors to eliminate the consortia and get the boundaries done.

[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.

Ohhhh. This is it. This is how MCPS staff still somehow see yourselves as the good guys here. You think that better-off families have louder voices (true) and somehow use that to justify that all concerns must be from better-off families (false) and that refusing to gather feedback is a moral choice because MCPS staff already understand and reflect the interests of the less-represented voices (false) and that letting families have any opportunities to make suggestions and give input would only benefit the interests of better-off families (false.)

It's pretty ridiculous coming from the folks who refuse to do any kind of equity analysis and didn't even consider equity or demographics in their program placement decisions....

[Anonymous]

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".

+ 1 Magruder has an aviation program - tell me which other school has this?

[Anonymous]

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

+100,000

+ 1 million

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB magnet bus does not stop at every school, community center and library. It stops at some, particularly if they are near SpEd stops, which are at the individual student’s home and share the buses/routes.

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB magnet bus does not stop at every school, community center and library. It stops at some, particularly if they are near SpEd stops, which are at the individual student’s home and share the buses/routes.

RMIB school bus route can be found here: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/Transportation/busroutes/04201mbus.pdf

Those “xxxxxxx” changes every year depending on whether a specific community/ES has or has not students enrolled in the IB program. Please come up with a regional bus model at least looks something like this before you can even talk about equitable access.

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB buses don't currently stop at every school, community center, and library. My kid didn't apply for that reason -- it would be a pain for us to get to without bus service.

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB buses don't currently stop at every school, community center, and library. My kid didn't apply for that reason -- it would be a pain for us to get to without bus service.

Check out my post above. You can call transportation office for a stop nearby if they do not arrange (usually they do arrange before you ask). Whoever told you the route is fixed as is was giving you misinformation - signed by a past RMIB parent.

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB magnet bus does not stop at every school, community center and library. It stops at some, particularly if they are near SpEd stops, which are at the individual student’s home and share the buses/routes.

RMIB school bus route can be found here: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/Transportation/busroutes/04201mbus.pdf

Those “xxxxxxx” changes every year depending on whether a specific community/ES has or has not students enrolled in the IB program. Please come up with a regional bus model at least looks something like this before you can even talk about equitable access.

i

They can’t! It would be INSANELY expensive. Which is precisely the problem with having every single hs host a magnet program.

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB buses don't currently stop at every school, community center, and library. My kid didn't apply for that reason -- it would be a pain for us to get to without bus service.

Check out my post above. You can call transportation office for a stop nearby if they do not arrange (usually they do arrange before you ask). Whoever told you the route is fixed as is was giving you misinformation - signed by a past RMIB parent.

This may have been true in the past but is not true currently.

[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: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?

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access.

RMIB buses don't currently stop at every school, community center, and library. My kid didn't apply for that reason -- it would be a pain for us to get to without bus service.

Check out my post above. You can call transportation office for a stop nearby if they do not arrange (usually they do arrange before you ask). Whoever told you the route is fixed as is was giving you misinformation - signed by a past RMIB parent.

I wish we had known that. My kid would have applied. Oh well!

[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.

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.

Existing countywide magnets like
Blair SMCS
Einstein VAC
Poolesville Global Ecology/SMCS/Humanities
RMIB

These programs and future student cohorts are the ones being punished.

These programs are NOT CTE programs and never were. Conflating the issue is yet another example as to why MCPS is out of touch and tone deaf. Can't even tell the difference.

Besides MCPS early on said they were NOT expanding the CTE programs at Edison/Seneca Valley. But now is MCPS using CTE to describe the regional programs that they are trying to create? MCPS likes to blur terminology!

[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.

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.

Existing countywide magnets like
Blair SMCS
Einstein VAC
Poolesville Global Ecology/SMCS/Humanities
RMIB

These programs and future student cohorts are the ones being punished.

These programs are NOT CTE programs and never were. Conflating the issue is yet another example as to why MCPS is out of touch and tone deaf. Can't even tell the difference.

Besides MCPS early on said they were NOT expanding the CTE programs at Edison/Seneca Valley. But now is MCPS using CTE to describe the regional programs that they are trying to create? MCPS likes to blur terminology!

It won’t just punish future kids, it’s punishing kids in the programs now. As soon as they decide to dismantle starting in 2027, kids in the programs will see their options dissipate as the focus will be building the newer lesser programs that no one wants.

[Anonymous]

Natali Fani-González is the county council's newly elected president. She has been a critic of the regional model.