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: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.

The team in charge of this regional model rollout is the same exact team under whose watch MCPS parents are not aware of the options available to them.

Yet you expect them to magically do their jobs correctly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.

So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process.

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

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

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

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....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

[Anonymous]

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

Until MCPS somehow manages to get its claws into her too, just like they did with BBC. Still wondering how they did the 180 - smells fishy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Until MCPS somehow manages to get its claws into her too, just like they did with BBC. Still wondering how they did the 180 - smells fishy.

You mean the Black and Brown Coalition? It's mostly just run by a couple people who have a financial interest in MCPS Central Office being happy with them, so I suspect that has a lot to do with it...

[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.

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....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

+1000

This is a case study on how to do things in the most offensive and inequitable way

[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.

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....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

+1000

This is a case study on how to do things in the most offensive and inequitable way

This is who we have in MCPS Central Office leading the regional model.

[Anonymous]

How is it more cost effective for MCPS to bear the burden of making all of these CTE courses available rather than partnering with MCC to expand their course offerings and create class schedules that work for MCPS students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Until MCPS somehow manages to get its claws into her too, just like they did with BBC. Still wondering how they did the 180 - smells fishy.

You mean the Black and Brown Coalition? It's mostly just run by a couple people who have a financial interest in MCPS Central Office being happy with them, so I suspect that has a lot to do with it...

This is helpful to know as the NAACP/Black and Brown had a MVA parent testify against the school when their kids went there and they seemed happy with the school. It was completely bizarre after the NAACP leaders were some where were advocating for the school to open in the first place and gve guidance on setting things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Until MCPS somehow manages to get its claws into her too, just like they did with BBC. Still wondering how they did the 180 - smells fishy.

You mean the Black and Brown Coalition? It's mostly just run by a couple people who have a financial interest in MCPS Central Office being happy with them, so I suspect that has a lot to do with it...

This is helpful to know as the NAACP/Black and Brown had a MVA parent testify against the school when their kids went there and they seemed happy with the school. It was completely bizarre after the NAACP leaders were some where were advocating for the school to open in the first place and gve guidance on setting things up.

Sounds like BBC likes to flip flop. Selling themselves to the highest bidder?

[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.

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 .

I am an MCPS parent and I *do* want the programs. Parents with students who meet the criteria and are just finding out support MCPS and are happy they stood up to you!

Please stop trying to speak for me or others whose opinions differ from yours. It is clear that you want the voices of people who want these programs diluted and that is probably why you had the experience you did on the design team.

No program is “going away” and no student is being “punished for proficiency”.

You want a program to be on your region? Request it!

You want a program to be stronger? Advocate with other parents to build it!

Stop pretending to be incapable of advocacy when you all are so strong on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Until MCPS somehow manages to get its claws into her too, just like they did with BBC. Still wondering how they did the 180 - smells fishy.

You mean the Black and Brown Coalition? It's mostly just run by a couple people who have a financial interest in MCPS Central Office being happy with them, so I suspect that has a lot to do with it...

This is helpful to know as the NAACP/Black and Brown had a MVA parent testify against the school when their kids went there and they seemed happy with the school. It was completely bizarre after the NAACP leaders were some where were advocating for the school to open in the first place and gve guidance on setting things up.

Sounds like BBC likes to flip flop. Selling themselves to the highest bidder?

Nothing helpful here. There is a clear pattern of labeling every group agreeing with MCPS as having a financial or other conflicting interest. I couldn’t be prouder of our school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it more cost effective for MCPS to bear the burden of making all of these CTE courses available rather than partnering with MCC to expand their course offerings and create class schedules that work for MCPS students?

Have you raised that question at any of the program analysis meetings?

If you did, what did MCPS say?

[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.

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....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

The data on the proficient students who meet the criteria but didn’t apply due to transportation issues or because their parents did not know about the program show exactly who needs these changes.

Every parent in that situation who learns more about what MCPS is doing and haven’t been exposed to misleading claims about programs intentionally watered down or intended to go away, wants the regional model.

When you compare the 1% who applied and got a seat vs 3% who applied but did not get a seat vs 22% who qualified based on meeting the criteria, the numbers show a different picture from the one you are presenting. The vast majority would not benefit from things staying the same, not even for the criteria-based programs.

More parents who have observed the differences between MCPS when seventh graders were born in 2013 (the data on which EPS did their study) and the current status of MCPS are finally connecting the dots confirming that the EPS study accurately predicted what would happen if access to these programs were not expanded.

Or are we to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary - evidence that we are living through as well as reported data - that everyone but the 1% who have always benefited is prejudiced? Not happening!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it more cost effective for MCPS to bear the burden of making all of these CTE courses available rather than partnering with MCC to expand their course offerings and create class schedules that work for MCPS students?

Have you raised that question at any of the program analysis meetings?

If you did, what did MCPS say?

Karyla works for MC as the liaison to MCPS, so they will not answer that question or give numbers. It's her job to bring MCPS students to MC. It's also in the state blueprint to encourage community college. However, the class schedules do not align, so often kids have to take classes at night, which conflicts with sports, activities and homework. There are also transportation issues. MCPS provides a bus from the home school in the AM and PM, so you have to do all your classes at MC or provide your own transportation. Students who have cars/driving age or easy access to bus transportation may be able to make it work, but for some of us it's impossible. To buy a car would be what 10-15K for something decent used, $2-3K or more for insurance yearly, plus gas, regular maintenance and repairs, all to take 1-2 classes at MC?

[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.

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....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

The data on the proficient students who meet the criteria but didn’t apply due to transportation issues or because their parents did not know about the program show exactly who needs these changes.

Every parent in that situation who learns more about what MCPS is doing and haven’t been exposed to misleading claims about programs intentionally watered down or intended to go away, wants the regional model.

When you compare the 1% who applied and got a seat vs 3% who applied but did not get a seat vs 22% who qualified based on meeting the criteria, the numbers show a different picture from the one you are presenting. The vast majority would not benefit from things staying the same, not even for the criteria-based programs.

More parents who have observed the differences between MCPS when seventh graders were born in 2013 (the data on which EPS did their study) and the current status of MCPS are finally connecting the dots confirming that the EPS study accurately predicted what would happen if access to these programs were not expanded.

Or are we to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary - evidence that we are living through as well as reported data - that everyone but the 1% who have always benefited is prejudiced? Not happening!

Oh come on. I am no fan of the Blair and RMIB folks who act like the sky will fall if you expand their programs from the top 1% to the top 3% or 5%, but anyone who thinks that 22% of MCPS students are prepared for the super-accelerated program at Blair has no real understanding of Blair SMCS or the niche it fills for highly gifted kids, which is absolutely not and should not be just "generic math and science acceleration and enrichment for bright kids. (And I say this as a parent of bright kids who are in the top 20% academically but nowhere near the top 1% or even 3%, and so theoretically would benefit from these changes once they get to high school but in reality are absolutely not the right fit for a program like Blair. I still would rather protect the value of highly advanced programs for the kids who need them, rather than turn them into a generic honors program that my kids could get into.)

Where'd you get that 22%, anyway? It doesn't make a bit of sense (unless "the criteria" is something super low and generic, like "has taken Algebra 1 by 8th grade" or "has a MAP-M score above the 80th percentile" or something. But those things have little to do with the actual criteria to get into and benefit from programs like SMCS.)