New presentation & FAQ up for program analysis

[Anonymous]

Will the students who are dropped off at their local high school have another bus to take them the last mile(s) home? Or are they stuck at the high school with no further transportation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

I almost feel secondhand embarrassment for them. Like this is really embarrassing in the way that a colleague totally bombing a presentation is, or Biden's debate, or an awful karaoke performance. Except that it also could affect my kid's future.

This is like Biden’s debate, only he didn’t drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the students who are dropped off at their local high school have another bus to take them the last mile(s) home? Or are they stuck at the high school with no further transportation?

No local school bus unless the special programs have less periods than ordinary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any new information in these documents?

The new information is that they are digging in on implementing this model alongside the boundary change despite the overwhelming opposition from parents and teachers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the students who are dropped off at their local high school have another bus to take them the last mile(s) home? Or are they stuck at the high school with no further transportation?

No, they timing will not line up so you need to get them there to/from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Oh, maybe they mean "admissions criteria" will stay the same, in the sense of the bare minimum eligibility? Like Algebra 1 in 8th for Blair or 1 year of foreign language in middle school for RMIB?

Yes, meeting bare minimum eligibility will get you into the proposed fake SMCS and IB.

Many kids would be eligible and capable, well above the minimum, who didn't get accepted due to space or transportation, or other issues, and they choose not to attend. The big issue is the limited offerings at many schools. So, this is inequity at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

I almost feel secondhand embarrassment for them. Like this is really embarrassing in the way that a colleague totally bombing a presentation is, or Biden's debate, or an awful karaoke performance. Except that it also could affect my kid's future.

This is like Biden’s debate, only he didn’t drop out.

In Soviet Russia, debate drops you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS says this about central stop transportation. There are apparently no guarantees of a stop within walking distance. How is this possibly equitable? The programs will only be for kids whose parents can drive them to a central stop?

"According to MCPS Regulation EEA-RA, Student
Transportation, Section II.B.2, “Centralized bus
service, defined as transportation from a central
location such as a neighborhood elementary
school, to the program site, may be provided to
students attending specific programs as identi-
fied in the MCPS Options (Guide to Countywide
Programs) booklet, in accordance with Board
action, attendance areas, transportation services,
and funding levels. Parents/guardians are respon-
sible for students’ transportation to and from
centralized bus stops, whether or not there is an
appropriate walking route.” Central stops are
placed at MCPS schools and other government
facilities. Not all students will have a bus stop
within walking distance of their home."

CO has been reiterated in multiple occasions that "central stops" only include local HSs, and this is exactly the transportation model used in their transportation budget (i.e., one HS-HS bus between every two HSs in every region, no matter how many students one bus can carry).

Oh that’s bad. So you can only attend regional programs if your parents can drive you to the school or the central stop….smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

For the latter, no. They have zero budget for new employees, only a couple thousand dollars per region per year for teacher training, and those teachers will magically know how to code a deep neural network, or run Adriano machines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS says this about central stop transportation. There are apparently no guarantees of a stop within walking distance. How is this possibly equitable? The programs will only be for kids whose parents can drive them to a central stop?

"According to MCPS Regulation EEA-RA, Student
Transportation, Section II.B.2, “Centralized bus
service, defined as transportation from a central
location such as a neighborhood elementary
school, to the program site, may be provided to
students attending specific programs as identi-
fied in the MCPS Options (Guide to Countywide
Programs) booklet, in accordance with Board
action, attendance areas, transportation services,
and funding levels. Parents/guardians are respon-
sible for students’ transportation to and from
centralized bus stops, whether or not there is an
appropriate walking route.” Central stops are
placed at MCPS schools and other government
facilities. Not all students will have a bus stop
within walking distance of their home."

CO has been reiterated in multiple occasions that "central stops" only include local HSs, and this is exactly the transportation model used in their transportation budget (i.e., one HS-HS bus between every two HSs in every region, no matter how many students one bus can carry).

Oh that’s bad. So you can only attend regional programs if your parents can drive you to the school or the central stop….smh

It’s certainly not “equitable” by any sense of the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Oh, maybe they mean "admissions criteria" will stay the same, in the sense of the bare minimum eligibility? Like Algebra 1 in 8th for Blair or 1 year of foreign language in middle school for RMIB?

Yes, meeting bare minimum eligibility will get you into the proposed fake SMCS and IB.

Many kids would be eligible and capable, well above the minimum, who didn't get accepted due to space or transportation, or other issues, and they choose not to attend. The big issue is the limited offerings at many schools. So, this is inequity at its finest.

But isn't the fact that there are many eligible and capable students but who don't get accepted due to space or who can't go due to transportation why we need more seats? Isn't this the issue this plan is attempting to solve?

There should also be more classes at each school because in the end most kids want or need to stay at their own schools.

Increasing seats in program and making sure home schools have advanced courses seems like a good plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Oh, maybe they mean "admissions criteria" will stay the same, in the sense of the bare minimum eligibility? Like Algebra 1 in 8th for Blair or 1 year of foreign language in middle school for RMIB?

Yes, meeting bare minimum eligibility will get you into the proposed fake SMCS and IB.

Many kids would be eligible and capable, well above the minimum, who didn't get accepted due to space or transportation, or other issues, and they choose not to attend. The big issue is the limited offerings at many schools. So, this is inequity at its finest.

But isn't the fact that there are many eligible and capable students but who don't get accepted due to space or who can't go due to transportation why we need more seats? Isn't this the issue this plan is attempting to solve?

There should also be more classes at each school because in the end most kids want or need to stay at their own schools.

Increasing seats in program and making sure home schools have advanced courses seems like a good plan.

No, it's not a plan as they are not adding classes to those schools without the classes. If anything, classes will be removed when they lose students due to redistricting, as they lose staff. The schools with advanced classes will be fine. The schools without it will be the problem, as what will happen to those students who cannot get into a magnet or go due to transportation?

You keep posting to make sure the home schools have more advanced classes but that will not happen without more funding and staff.

[Anonymous]

I don’t have a lot of confidence in the FAQs that spell two high schools wrong:

“James Herbert Blake” and “Thomas S. Wooton”

They’re upending our communities without even editing it.