Interview of MCPS program analysis leaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren't other regions having the same issues as Region 1?

All the regions will end up with uneven demand for programs, lack of equity in admissions, and some programs that are just limping along when MCPS goes to chase the next shiny object.

It's more evident in Region 1 right now because the change for DCC schools is so dramatic. The new system offers less choice, less access, worse transportation options, and longer travel times than the DCC. Current programs will be cut and teachers will have to move.

And that's just the structural changes. The fact that the plan for substance of programs themselves is so bad is poop icing on a cake made of shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

They assume that the numbers of students entering and leaving schools for magnets will be roughly equal.

That is a preposterous assumption.

Well, yes. But this is MCPS. Preposterous is their operating philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

They assume that the numbers of students entering and leaving schools for magnets will be roughly equal.

That is a preposterous assumption.

Well, yes. But this is MCPS. Preposterous is their operating philosophy.

I think they know they are lying. If they really believed it then it would be ridiculous for them to say the program model is "inextricably linked" with the boundary studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

it's really not a new program since it already exists. I don't know how many kids are in it, but I imagine that they'd just restrict the number of kids from BCC to have kids from other schools. It seems like the idea overall (with the no new teachers thing) is to just utilize resources that already exist at the locations.

It’s sort of a new program and sort of not. RMIB has higher level cohorted pre-IB courses in 9th/10th. BCC does not. RMIB magnet kids do the full diploma. BCC kids can choose to do the full diploma without any kind of application or criteria, or kids can just take IB courses of interest without doing the full diploma. No one has indicated what the plan will be with BCC under this new system. Particularly when BCC doesn’t really do much IB with 9th and 10th currently, kids will be joining a program that has minimal infrastructure until 11th/12th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

They assume that the numbers of students entering and leaving schools for magnets will be roughly equal.

That is a preposterous assumption.

Well, yes. But this is MCPS. Preposterous is their operating philosophy.

I think they know they are lying. If they really believed it then it would be ridiculous for them to say the program model is "inextricably linked" with the boundary studies.

Truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

it's really not a new program since it already exists. I don't know how many kids are in it, but I imagine that they'd just restrict the number of kids from BCC to have kids from other schools. It seems like the idea overall (with the no new teachers thing) is to just utilize resources that already exist at the locations.

It’s sort of a new program and sort of not. RMIB has higher level cohorted pre-IB courses in 9th/10th. BCC does not. RMIB magnet kids do the full diploma. BCC kids can choose to do the full diploma without any kind of application or criteria, or kids can just take IB courses of interest without doing the full diploma. No one has indicated what the plan will be with BCC under this new system. Particularly when BCC doesn’t really do much IB with 9th and 10th currently, kids will be joining a program that has minimal infrastructure until 11th/12th.

Also at BCC, some classes are cross registered. Like AP Spanish is in the same classroom as IB Spanish. Will that change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

The idea is that it would be canceled out by BCC students leaving for programs at the other 4 schools (whether that would play out in reality is an open question).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

The idea is that it would be canceled out by BCC students leaving for programs at the other 4 schools (whether that would play out in reality is an open question).

Again, the notion that programs won't increase or decrease enrollment at any school runs contrary to their continued and insistent assertion that the program model and boundary study are inextricably connected with one another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

The idea is that it would be canceled out by BCC students leaving for programs at the other 4 schools (whether that would play out in reality is an open question).

Again, the notion that programs won't increase or decrease enrollment at any school runs contrary to their continued and insistent assertion that the program model and boundary study are inextricably connected with one another.

Yeah, I agree there's no way that at every school the student "imports and exports" will net out to zero. And I think they know that, which is one reason for the argument that it's linked to the boundary changes. But I don't know if BCC, for example, would really net a significant # of students under this system to significantly increase their allocation to hire new teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

The idea is that it would be canceled out by BCC students leaving for programs at the other 4 schools (whether that would play out in reality is an open question).

Again, the notion that programs won't increase or decrease enrollment at any school runs contrary to their continued and insistent assertion that the program model and boundary study are inextricably connected with one another.

Yeah, I agree there's no way that at every school the student "imports and exports" will net out to zero. And I think they know that, which is one reason for the argument that it's linked to the boundary changes. But I don't know if BCC, for example, would really net a significant # of students under this system to significantly increase their allocation to hire new teachers.

Not a lot of BCC students currently travel to other schools (e.g. Blair or RMIB). It seems apparent that they will gain students on net.

[Anonymous]

This isn't that complicated, kids will travel to access things their school lacks. BCC has a lot of programs. They don't need to travel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how Jeannie Franklin still has a job. She is incapable of listening and answering questions directly and she seems to operate on wishful thinking.

She is awful. And that explains how she still has a job -- MCPS likes to retain awful people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

They assume that the numbers of students entering and leaving schools for magnets will be roughly equal.

That is a preposterous assumption.

Well, yes. But this is MCPS. Preposterous is their operating philosophy.

I think they know they are lying. If they really believed it then it would be ridiculous for them to say the program model is "inextricably linked" with the boundary studies.

It's "inextricably linked" because that is the most likely for it to pass under. The boundary study MUST pass because Woodward can't open without it. The program study is optional. If it weren't linked, it would be MUCH less likely to pass. So we need to de-link them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

it's really not a new program since it already exists. I don't know how many kids are in it, but I imagine that they'd just restrict the number of kids from BCC to have kids from other schools. It seems like the idea overall (with the no new teachers thing) is to just utilize resources that already exist at the locations.

It’s sort of a new program and sort of not. RMIB has higher level cohorted pre-IB courses in 9th/10th. BCC does not. RMIB magnet kids do the full diploma. BCC kids can choose to do the full diploma without any kind of application or criteria, or kids can just take IB courses of interest without doing the full diploma. No one has indicated what the plan will be with BCC under this new system. Particularly when BCC doesn’t really do much IB with 9th and 10th currently, kids will be joining a program that has minimal infrastructure until 11th/12th.

DP. It is definitely a new program. It will have 9th and 10th grade classes like RMIB has. It will have out of bounds spot. It will be much better than what is offered now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoa. Jeannie Franklin admitted that schools with existing programs won't get any new staff or resources.

Instead, the bulk of new resources will go to schools getting magnets for the first time, which means Wooton, Churchill, WJ, and BCC.

BCC is not getting a magnet for the first time. Or rather, the IB program that already exists is just going to become the "magnet".

It will need more teachers

I thought none of the programs are getting new teachers, just perhaps some extra training.

If they don't change BCC boundaries but put in a new criteria based program that adds 200 students from other schools, their staff allocation will increase and other schools' staff allocations decrease.

They assume that the numbers of students entering and leaving schools for magnets will be roughly equal.

That is a preposterous assumption.

Well, yes. But this is MCPS. Preposterous is their operating philosophy.

I think they know they are lying. If they really believed it then it would be ridiculous for them to say the program model is "inextricably linked" with the boundary studies.

It's "inextricably linked" because that is the most likely for it to pass under. The boundary study MUST pass because Woodward can't open without it. The program study is optional. If it weren't linked, it would be MUCH less likely to pass. So we need to de-link them.

There is a petition circulating asking fot them to be delinked. Please consider signing:
https://form.jotform.com/onestepatatime/fairboundaries