Why not 3 regions instead of 6?

[Anonymous]

Your 3 region model makes more sense to me than the 6. This is why the iterative (ie, fly by the seat of your pants) approach is idiotic for a change this big. A methodical approach would bring in more voices who can come up with a better system to increase equity and access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The goal for the entire regional model is to meet the MD blueprint threshold for 45% or more HS graduate to get a certificate. How to meet that goal? Creating numerous special programs sugarcoated with attractive names and descriptions and making every HS to host multiple "special programs". Only through this way that they can attract enough students to meet their goal.

THIS, and why is no one listening/paying attention? And, why doesn't MCPS just come out and say it? So much for transparency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your 3 region model makes more sense to me than the 6. This is why the iterative (ie, fly by the seat of your pants) approach is idiotic for a change this big. A methodical approach would bring in more voices who can come up with a better system to increase equity and access.

I agree. Starting with 3 regions and then MAYBE expanding to 6 regions over time as the system iterates and refines program management makes more sense to me than expecting to launch 6 regions with all of the various program offerings that the system is currently anticipating rolling out.