Program Analysis Vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

+1 they do not have anything that remotely resembles an equity mindset

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

There is making use of existing resources and then there is just taking what exist and giving it a new name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

+1 they do not have anything that remotely resembles an equity mindset

They literally admitted that they did not consider equity at all in deciding which programs should be placed at which schools, and Jeannie Franklin honestly seemed surprised and confused at the suggestion that they should have considered it. (She's also the genius that thinks that you need to give kids from W schools a leg up in getting into magnets located at their local school, because someone once told her "local setasides are good" and she either can't or isn't willing to think it through any more deeply than that.)

So it's unsurprising that the regional programs are going to be a huge step backwards for equity, since MCPS is refusing to even think about it in their plan (despite throwing the word around a lot.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

The board has been asking for data since last summer and won't receive it until March, when they are scheduled to vote. So, they may vote to delay until they have an opportunity to consider data from the school district on the programs/regions/boundaries.

Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the discussions at prior meetings, they will 100% vote for this. The Board supports it.

The board has been asking for data since last summer and won't receive it until March, when they are scheduled to vote. So, they may vote to delay until they have an opportunity to consider data from the school district on the programs/regions/boundaries.

Crazy.

This happened on Julie Yang's watch as BOE president with her martinet limitation of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

This, if they cared, they'd poll families to see what interest-based programs and courses families want. The problem with this model is kids at home schools without stem or strong programs are going to go without or families will move, possibly out of the county, or go private as the alternative is MC, which comes with its own set of needs, particularly transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

+1 they do not have anything that remotely resembles an equity mindset

They literally admitted that they did not consider equity at all in deciding which programs should be placed at which schools, and Jeannie Franklin honestly seemed surprised and confused at the suggestion that they should have considered it. (She's also the genius that thinks that you need to give kids from W schools a leg up in getting into magnets located at their local school, because someone once told her "local setasides are good" and she either can't or isn't willing to think it through any more deeply than that.)

So it's unsurprising that the regional programs are going to be a huge step backwards for equity, since MCPS is refusing to even think about it in their plan (despite throwing the word around a lot.)

I don't think central office understands what is going on at the school level as when I've talked to them I've gotten some strange anwsers and they don't even understand the graduation requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve yet to understand why they created so many variations of programs based on the themes instead of keeping them mostly the same. That way they could have a smoother implementation and better program oversight.

The initial framework should have been very simple:
•5 magnet programs types (1 representing each theme)
•3-5 interest based programs types (aligned to a theme)
•5 Program Manager positions
•8-10 cross regional teams (1 for each program

They prefer to spend as little to make this happen as they can. That means using existing personnel/local programs as much as possible. Which means that the program "flavor" for each region depends on the differences that currently exist at that school (as compared with whichever school in another region is hosting a magnet of the same program type).

This also is why we see proposed new magnets of the more traditional academic types (e.g., STEM, Humanities, IB) largely being placed at higher-performing schools, which are already rich with such programming. (pun intended)

+1 they do not have anything that remotely resembles an equity mindset

They literally admitted that they did not consider equity at all in deciding which programs should be placed at which schools, and Jeannie Franklin honestly seemed surprised and confused at the suggestion that they should have considered it. (She's also the genius that thinks that you need to give kids from W schools a leg up in getting into magnets located at their local school, because someone once told her "local setasides are good" and she either can't or isn't willing to think it through any more deeply than that.)

So it's unsurprising that the regional programs are going to be a huge step backwards for equity, since MCPS is refusing to even think about it in their plan (despite throwing the word around a lot.)

I don't think central office understands what is going on at the school level as when I've talked to them I've gotten some strange anwsers and they don't even understand the graduation requirements.

CO is incompetent and has little control over local schools. That's why so many zombie courses are listed in the bulletin which was used for generating statistics that CO shares to the public to demonstrate equity, but actually do not exist at many HSs with limited resources or low enrollment.

So for the regional program, it will be exactly the same thing. Or even worse, without added resources, the new programs will be just nothing more than a name-changing game.