10/16 Board of Ed meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor claims MoCo community is "aligned" on equity LOL

He needs to define what he considers equity.

His version of equity will play out as segregation 2.0. People will retreat to their home schools - that is ultimately what they want I guess.

Wonder if there will be lawsuits over this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pardon if this is a dumb question but is “humanities” = IB? Or what is it?

There are humanities in IB but they are different fields of study. In the Humanities curriculum, emphasis is placed on critical thinking, creativity, and rights and responsibilities of the individual in society. - There is study of history, literature, writing and philosophy.


IB has some of this, but also has math and science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding Wolff's comment that if you're waiting for perfection, it would never be done--

to delay the programs analysis vote for a year is not waiting for perfection. It would allow communities to understand the plan's impact and to have meaningful voice.

WHY does she keep getting re-elected. Useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the program groupings for region 1?

Brand new and not up online yet. The changes I remember is that they are sending the criteria-based humanities program from BCC (bad) to Whitman (much worse), and that they are letting Einstein keep only the music part of the performing arts magnet (theater and dance at Northwood.)

Einstein also has medical science and healthcare

There’s no interest at Einstein to hold that magnet!

Speak for yourself. My kids would love that and as a parent of kids inbounds for Einstein, I think it’s a great switch!

Your future doctors and nurses need far more than the program they are offering.

Like college and medical/nursing school?

Those biomedical programs are more geared toward medical support staff. People angling to get admitted to premed will need much more rigor, like that found at Blair SMCS. I do not have faith that a Sherwood HS SMCS, for example, will offer that level of rigor.

Have you take organic chem? If you can’t handle the rigor of Blair SMCS, I would say you are not likely to be able to hang in there to do what is needed to become a doctor.

Cutting off region 5 access to Poolesville SMCS is similarly inequitable.

This is inaccurate and should not be spread around the community as fact. As someone noted, kids need four years of college (or the equivalent) and 4 years of medical school before they become a doctor. What a kid can handle at 14 does not equate to what they will know or be able to handle at 21. I'm not sure why folks feel that the entire college curriculum needs to be moved down to the HS level in order for kids to show rigor, interest, or ability. No one has to be taking organic chem in HS in order to be successful in pre-med at the collegiate level. A program like Biomedical science is suppose to expose kids to the variety of careers available in the medical field, while also giving the depth and rigor of skills to be college and career ready. I would prefer to see them having kids study Anatomy and Physiology and Medical Ethics.

PLTW has already developed a Biomedical Science curriculum for HS. https://www.pltw.org/curriculum/biomedical-science

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chart from chat gbt on medium taxes paid.

Estimated Median Annual Property Taxes by High School Cluster
High School Cluster Median Home Value Estimated Median Annual Property Tax
Walt Whitman $990,000 $8,613
Winston Churchill $905,000 $7,873
Bethesda-Chevy Chase (BCC) $830,000 $7,221
Thomas S. Wootton $700,000 $6,090
Montgomery Blair (Silver Spring) $650,000 $5,655
Walter Johnson $560,000 $4,872
James Hubert Blake (Silver Spring) $550,000 $4,785
Richard Montgomery $510,000 $4,437
John F. Kennedy (Silver Spring) $500,000 $4,350
Quince Orchard $420,000 $3,654
Springbrook (Silver Spring) $450,000 $3,915
Northwood (Silver Spring) $475,000 $4,138
Gaithersburg $365,000 $3,175
Northwest $345,000 $3,002
Wheaton (Silver Spring) $425,000 $3,698
Albert Einstein (Silver Spring) $400,000 $3,480
Poolesville $375,000 $3,263
Damascus $350,000 $3,045
Clarksburg $325,000 $2,907
Seneca Valley $300,000 $2,610
Watkins Mill $275,000 $2,393
Paint Branch $250,000 $2,175
Blair High School (Silver Spring) $650,000 $5,655

Inaccurate and useless

Then provide something better.

Why?

[Anonymous]

I read something very funny just now. Looked at their Sample Model Budget for region 4, year 1, for adding a minimum of 520 non-local students (the cost of local students attending the programs is not included in their figures, slide 88).

Their estimate to enact all six programs plus the other special programs to teach over 500 non-local students is equivalent to adding just ONE new teacher (70,000x4) for each of the four HS. And the added cost to taxpayers with this ridiculous assumption for just this one region is over $600,000.

What a money pit of a proposal that will only worsen inequity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita Montoya is ripping into their community engagement efforts. Thank you Ms. Montoya.

What did she say? At what time in the meeting (for looking up her comments)?

Look at the time stamp on the above post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the program groupings for region 1?

Brand new and not up online yet. The changes I remember is that they are sending the criteria-based humanities program from BCC (bad) to Whitman (much worse), and that they are letting Einstein keep only the music part of the performing arts magnet (theater and dance at Northwood.)

Einstein also has medical science and healthcare

There’s no interest at Einstein to hold that magnet!

Speak for yourself. My kids would love that and as a parent of kids inbounds for Einstein, I think it’s a great switch!

Your future doctors and nurses need far more than the program they are offering.

Like college and medical/nursing school?

Those biomedical programs are more geared toward medical support staff. People angling to get admitted to premed will need much more rigor, like that found at Blair SMCS. I do not have faith that a Sherwood HS SMCS, for example, will offer that level of rigor.

Have you take organic chem? If you can’t handle the rigor of Blair SMCS, I would say you are not likely to be able to hang in there to do what is needed to become a doctor.

Cutting off region 5 access to Poolesville SMCS is similarly inequitable.

This is inaccurate and should not be spread around the community as fact. As someone noted, kids need four years of college (or the equivalent) and 4 years of medical school before they become a doctor. What a kid can handle at 14 does not equate to what they will know or be able to handle at 21. I'm not sure why folks feel that the entire college curriculum needs to be moved down to the HS level in order for kids to show rigor, interest, or ability. No one has to be taking organic chem in HS in order to be successful in pre-med at the collegiate level. A program like Biomedical science is suppose to expose kids to the variety of careers available in the medical field, while also giving the depth and rigor of skills to be college and career ready. I would prefer to see them having kids study Anatomy and Physiology and Medical Ethics.

PLTW has already developed a Biomedical Science curriculum for HS. https://www.pltw.org/curriculum/biomedical-science

College level is a big jump in difficulty level from HS. If you are wise, you would prepare your kids to handle the rigor through AP classes and Blair SMCS. Not the PLTW Biomedical Science curriculum or fake SMCS that would be at Springbrook or Gaithersburg HS. Any SMCS should have the exact same level of teachers, course offerings, and funding as Blair SMCS to be equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the program groupings for region 1?

Brand new and not up online yet. The changes I remember is that they are sending the criteria-based humanities program from BCC (bad) to Whitman (much worse), and that they are letting Einstein keep only the music part of the performing arts magnet (theater and dance at Northwood.)

Einstein also has medical science and healthcare

There’s no interest at Einstein to hold that magnet!

Speak for yourself. My kids would love that and as a parent of kids inbounds for Einstein, I think it’s a great switch!

Your future doctors and nurses need far more than the program they are offering.

Like college and medical/nursing school?

+1

Thinking that what classes kids take in high school predicts whether they’ll become doctors is all kinds of ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read something very funny just now. Looked at their Sample Model Budget for region 4, year 1, for adding a minimum of 520 non-local students (the cost of local students attending the programs is not included in their figures, slide 88).

Their estimate to enact all six programs plus the other special programs to teach over 500 non-local students is equivalent to adding just ONE new teacher (70,000x4) for each of the four HS. And the added cost to taxpayers with this ridiculous assumption for just this one region is over $600,000.

What a money pit of a proposal that will only worsen inequity.

It's zero new teachers for any of the programs. The staffing cost is for 0.6 of a program coordinator in the first year (phases up to 1.0 over 3 years.). All teachers are assumed to be existing staff at the school, or if new staff are hired they're expecting to replace existing staff within current staffing allocations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something very funny just now. Looked at their Sample Model Budget for region 4, year 1, for adding a minimum of 520 non-local students (the cost of local students attending the programs is not included in their figures, slide 88).

Their estimate to enact all six programs plus the other special programs to teach over 500 non-local students is equivalent to adding just ONE new teacher (70,000x4) for each of the four HS. And the added cost to taxpayers with this ridiculous assumption for just this one region is over $600,000.

What a money pit of a proposal that will only worsen inequity.

It's zero new teachers for any of the programs. The staffing cost is for 0.6 of a program coordinator in the first year (phases up to 1.0 over 3 years.). All teachers are assumed to be existing staff at the school, or if new staff are hired they're expecting to replace existing staff within current staffing allocations.

Yes, my point is that their staffing projection is preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something very funny just now. Looked at their Sample Model Budget for region 4, year 1, for adding a minimum of 520 non-local students (the cost of local students attending the programs is not included in their figures, slide 88).

Their estimate to enact all six programs plus the other special programs to teach over 500 non-local students is equivalent to adding just ONE new teacher (70,000x4) for each of the four HS. And the added cost to taxpayers with this ridiculous assumption for just this one region is over $600,000.

What a money pit of a proposal that will only worsen inequity.

It's zero new teachers for any of the programs. The staffing cost is for 0.6 of a program coordinator in the first year (phases up to 1.0 over 3 years.). All teachers are assumed to be existing staff at the school, or if new staff are hired they're expecting to replace existing staff within current staffing allocations.

Yes, my point is that their staffing projection is preposterous.

Their staffing and transportation model and budget remain similar to what presented two months ago. BOE has two months and county council meeting notes to prepare their questions on these, yet the only question was from Zimmerman on surveying teacher’s willingness vs certificates (a good one that has been pointed out two months ago here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something very funny just now. Looked at their Sample Model Budget for region 4, year 1, for adding a minimum of 520 non-local students (the cost of local students attending the programs is not included in their figures, slide 88).

Their estimate to enact all six programs plus the other special programs to teach over 500 non-local students is equivalent to adding just ONE new teacher (70,000x4) for each of the four HS. And the added cost to taxpayers with this ridiculous assumption for just this one region is over $600,000.

What a money pit of a proposal that will only worsen inequity.

It's zero new teachers for any of the programs. The staffing cost is for 0.6 of a program coordinator in the first year (phases up to 1.0 over 3 years.). All teachers are assumed to be existing staff at the school, or if new staff are hired they're expecting to replace existing staff within current staffing allocations.

Yes, my point is that their staffing projection is preposterous.

Their staffing and transportation model and budget remain similar to what presented two months ago. BOE has two months and county council meeting notes to prepare their questions on these, yet the only question was from Zimmerman on surveying teacher’s willingness vs certificates (a good one that has been pointed out two months ago here).

BOE’s lack of due diligence is alarming. They are not adequately prepared to assess whether the plan would actually accomplish what it purports to do. The assumptions behind the budget and staffing analysis is simple-minded like what maybe an 8th grader would put together, and their byzantine solution to inequity will make things worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read something very funny just now. Looked at their Sample Model Budget for region 4, year 1, for adding a minimum of 520 non-local students (the cost of local students attending the programs is not included in their figures, slide 88).

Their estimate to enact all six programs plus the other special programs to teach over 500 non-local students is equivalent to adding just ONE new teacher (70,000x4) for each of the four HS. And the added cost to taxpayers with this ridiculous assumption for just this one region is over $600,000.

What a money pit of a proposal that will only worsen inequity.

It's zero new teachers for any of the programs. The staffing cost is for 0.6 of a program coordinator in the first year (phases up to 1.0 over 3 years.). All teachers are assumed to be existing staff at the school, or if new staff are hired they're expecting to replace existing staff within current staffing allocations.

Yes, my point is that their staffing projection is preposterous.

Their staffing and transportation model and budget remain similar to what presented two months ago. BOE has two months and county council meeting notes to prepare their questions on these, yet the only question was from Zimmerman on surveying teacher’s willingness vs certificates (a good one that has been pointed out two months ago here).

BOE’s lack of due diligence is alarming. They are not adequately prepared to assess whether the plan would actually accomplish what it purports to do. The assumptions behind the budget and staffing analysis is simple-minded like what maybe an 8th grader would put together, and their byzantine solution to inequity will make things worse.

Hey now, some 8th graders aren't THAT dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor claims MoCo community is "aligned" on equity LOL

He needs to define what he considers equity.

His version of equity will play out as segregation 2.0. People will retreat to their home schools - that is ultimately what they want I guess.

Wonder if there will be lawsuits over this stuff.

Uh, there are now no racial covenants. Anyone can purchase a home in any neighborhood. And for the record, Montgomery County was almost 100% white 50 years ago post-segregation and yet people still move to areas where people of similar backgrounds live. No one is stopping a POC from buying a million home in Bethesda.