2023-24 draft calendar scenarios to be reviewed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all of you moaning about learning loss, I'm looking at other counties and they start later than MoCo AND get out earlier. Garrett- Start: Sept. 6 End: June 7 Harford: Sept 6-June 13 Queen Anne's August 29-June 8..Somerset August 29-June 8th, Wicomico- Sept 6-June 14, Worcester: September 6-June 13....so they have the right idea of what a school year should look like. MoCo insists on extra days where no work is actually done because students are more than checked out at that point. Common sense, which not a shocker, but MoCo residents tend not to have.

Some of them have basically a long weekend for Spring Break and don’t take into consideration any other non-Christian holidays because they have a much less diverse population of students and staff. They also don’t have many teacher workdays so I don’t know how teachers are getting trained or getting time for planning/grading.

Hint: "Teacher training" aka professional development is a joke 99.9% of the time and if teachers had the chance at longer summers vs a few extra hours to grade on a half day, they'd gladly take the longer summer.

I’m a teacher and I disagree. The long hours I spend 4-5 days a week grading at home are stressing me out and disrupting my family life in a way that a couple extra weeks of summer (at most) will not fix. I’d rather have a half day once a week like the school system I grew up in. Every Wed was a half day. Teachers had meetings and planning time. Nearly every student went to the free or low cost rec center programs until the normal dismissal time.

So many schools all over the country have one half day a week (and have a regular 180 day schedule)...Sane people resides there. That would never happen here. Can you imagine? The MoCo parents would lose their minds..LEARNING LOSS! They have absolutely no critical thinking skills outside of what they think is best and ignore what other schools all over the country do as standard practices. They'd just blame MCEA and teachers like they always do.

Oh such a good point! We just moved here and my daughter starts K next year. I was shocked there was no short day, when I first noticed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option A. International families need longer winter break so they can travel to countries like India in the cooler months.

International families have been taking trips like this for years and will continue to do so. As a teacher, I am sympathetic to the need for them to do so and do understand that it causes some extra work on the part of students and teachers when this happens, but it involves a very low percentage of our students. I do not think it is justified to disrupt the winter months to this extent for a very low number of families. We can accommodate their needs in a respectful way while still allowing the educational program to continue without the disruption of such a long winter break.

Low number only due to option of travelling not being there. It won't be a low number in diverse county where international population is so huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option A. International families need longer winter break so they can travel to countries like India in the cooler months.

International families have been taking trips like this for years and will continue to do so. As a teacher, I am sympathetic to the need for them to do so and do understand that it causes some extra work on the part of students and teachers when this happens, but it involves a very low percentage of our students. I do not think it is justified to disrupt the winter months to this extent for a very low number of families. We can accommodate their needs in a respectful way while still allowing the educational program to continue without the disruption of such a long winter break.

Low number only due to option of travelling not being there. It won't be a low number in diverse county where international population is so huge.

It still won't be an option of many due to the high cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thank you so much for the update.

[Anonymous]

I really don't get the point of starting 3 days earlier, particularly next year when it is going to mess with plans folks have already made. MCPS needs to figure out what they want the calendar to look like for the long haul and stick with it rather than jerking everyone around every year or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

So the option they could go with isn't even one they sent out in the survey? The new option will be both presented for the first time and voted on at the Dec. 6 meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

So the option they could go with isn't even one they sent out in the survey? The new option will be both presented for the first time and voted on at the Dec. 6 meeting?

The board members were asking staff if they could come up with and present this new option and collect feedback before the 12/6 meeting, but I don't know if that's feasible at this point. Smondrowski was also asking if staff could come to the 12/6 meeting with a rough draft 2024-25 calendar as well, so they could start planning further ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

So the option they could go with isn't even one they sent out in the survey? The new option will be both presented for the first time and voted on at the Dec. 6 meeting?

The board members were asking staff if they could come up with and present this new option and collect feedback before the 12/6 meeting, but I don't know if that's feasible at this point. Smondrowski was also asking if staff could come to the 12/6 meeting with a rough draft 2024-25 calendar as well, so they could start planning further ahead.

Oh good grief. It is evident from all the survey results and stakeholder meetings that the majority of people are fine with the general framework of the calendar as is, and there is only a limited number of people who see value in any of the drastically different options. If you boil it down even further, I think if you take all the feedback they’ve received, people basically want the latest feasible start and the earliest feasible end. Which is essentially what the current calendar does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

Many east coast schools have been in the habit of starting mid-week after Labor Day (Tuesday or Wednesday) so that itself doesn't seem like a huge problem. If they start the 23rd, would teacher work days start the 16th? When would 6th and 9th Grade orientation be, when they run the busses? 21st or 22nd? What about high school senior events, or high school events for returning students like activity fair? Would it all get jammed into the 21st/22nd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

So the option they could go with isn't even one they sent out in the survey? The new option will be both presented for the first time and voted on at the Dec. 6 meeting?

The board members were asking staff if they could come up with and present this new option and collect feedback before the 12/6 meeting, but I don't know if that's feasible at this point. Smondrowski was also asking if staff could come to the 12/6 meeting with a rough draft 2024-25 calendar as well, so they could start planning further ahead.

See, now that makes more sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe D was the most popular option. WTF would people be okay with going to June 18th? Maybe a lot of the people who chose D don’t send their kids the last few days of school anyway?

We end this year on June 16. It’s essentially the same/mid June. It’s not freakishly late. I would prefer they strike out a few professional days so they could wrap it up the prior Friday, but no one gave us that option (basic what we have now). I greatly prefer the Aug 28 start, so D was the obvious winner for me. And evidently for the most others.

I think the final version could still end up being something like Aug 28 - June 14, even though that wasn't one of the scenarios.

The Policy Management Committee met today, and they seemed to be agreeing on ending by June 14, but there was still some uncertainty about starting during the week of the 21st or 28th. The focus groups they had were in more favor of the 28th, but open to the 23rd. They talked about needing to figure out logistical issues with a mid-week start. Smondrowski was again favoring the earlier start, and brought on Jeff Sullivan to say that an earlier start of school is better for the athletics programs too. It sounds like the longer Thanksgiving and winter breaks aren't generating much interest. The superintendent's recommendation will be presented at the full board meeting on Dec. 6th.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CLAT9R764F5D/$file/221121%20SY%202023-24%20Calendar%20PMC%20Presentation.pdf

Thanks for summarizing! Could you tell how the other board members were leaning?

Evans and Kim went along with Smondrowski's suggestion asking the staff to create some sort of merged version of B and D, starting sometime the week of Aug 21st and ending by June 14th. Docca was against that, as she seemed to prefer starting the 28th. (But just noting that her term will end before the next full board meeting, so the newly elected board members will be the ones voting on it.)

Many east coast schools have been in the habit of starting mid-week after Labor Day (Tuesday or Wednesday) so that itself doesn't seem like a huge problem. If they start the 23rd, would teacher work days start the 16th? When would 6th and 9th Grade orientation be, when they run the busses? 21st or 22nd? What about high school senior events, or high school events for returning students like activity fair? Would it all get jammed into the 21st/22nd?

Yeah we always started the Wednesday after labor day. But we didn't have so many orientations and such before the start of the school year. I'm sure it's all feasible, but there are obviously trick-down effects to a midweek start and whether they can work all that out, and get feedback, in two weeks is doubtful.

[Anonymous]

If all the MCPS people on this thread are done congratulating yourselves, can you please explain why there are three non-instructional days in a row? Last Friday kids played games for their "mental health" and this week there were two half-days. All were non-instructional since they didn't cover new material in that time. Same goes for the other half-days. How can this possibly count under the 180 day Maryland instruction requirement?