When is the plan for new HS programs coming out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And it's a disaster, and since MCPS has been secretive about the entire process (what happened to transparency?), people are going to be horrified. Not only with the 6 zones, but how much change this will mean for our communities.

That this is being done along side the boundary study, but not with the boundary study, is malfeasance.

They don't have a real plan and have to justify the millions they spent on the consultant firm. Instead of central office coming up with logical boundaries, they blew millions that could have been better spent elsewhere. AI or the kids probably could have done better.

For WJ, take off 800-100 kids and send them to Woodard who are on the Woodward side, then take Garett Park, North Bethesda/Rockville and send them to Woodward. Done. Then, rebalance the other schools slightly. Add more funds/programs to the DCC to make it equal to the W school. Add a magnet program to Kennedy to make it a more attractive school. Make Einstein a true performing arts school - funding, staff, test in orchestra/bands like they do for VAPA and bring higher academics to it so students will stay. And, do something special with Northwood and some of the other schools, each getting something to draw kids. Or, turn one of the schools into a true magnet school and test in like TJ. There are a few BOE running everything and they have no clue what they are doing and and very bias and probably getting kickbacks. BOE members should not be working at MC in a position that is a liaison to MCPS, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

I’m sure it’s tricky. I remember seeing a slide about responses to the boundary study, and I noted that a much larger share of responses had come from W clusters. The DCC was much less represented. While I am sure the BOE is interested in feedback, I’m sure they note that not all perspectives are equally represented.

As a DCC family, I know they don’t care about us so why bother. They will make their decisions and we will make our decisions accordingly. Worst case for us is we do a private virtual school or go private which we may anyway as we have no choice as one of my kids is struggling to get all the graduation requirements in due to lack of offerings.

All high schools offer classes for graduation. This doesn’t make sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

Someone upthread said the changes being made will impact the class of incoming 8th graders this year. So at this point, yes, parents want to know what is going on before this class gets something half cooked imposed upon them with no chance for parental feedback. Board members should want to know the details too if they're actually doing their jobs.

The slides show the changes will happen in 2027. So it will impact rising 7th graders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

I’m sure it’s tricky. I remember seeing a slide about responses to the boundary study, and I noted that a much larger share of responses had come from W clusters. The DCC was much less represented. While I am sure the BOE is interested in feedback, I’m sure they note that not all perspectives are equally represented.

As a DCC family, I know they don’t care about us so why bother. They will make their decisions and we will make our decisions accordingly. Worst case for us is we do a private virtual school or go private which we may anyway as we have no choice as one of my kids is struggling to get all the graduation requirements in due to lack of offerings.

All high schools offer classes for graduation. This doesn’t make sense

No, they don't. If your child starts Algebra in 6th they don't have enough math and are missing a year (assuming one year is AP stats).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's a disaster, and since MCPS has been secretive about the entire process (what happened to transparency?), people are going to be horrified. Not only with the 6 zones, but how much change this will mean for our communities.

That this is being done along side the boundary study, but not with the boundary study, is malfeasance.

Are you OK?

Agreed. Alongside is with the boundary study. One is about boundary and school assignment the other is about which programs exist, where, how students attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

Someone upthread said the changes being made will impact the class of incoming 8th graders this year. So at this point, yes, parents want to know what is going on before this class gets something half cooked imposed upon them with no chance for parental feedback. Board members should want to know the details too if they're actually doing their jobs.

That is just obviously ridiculous. Maybe don't trust everything you read from a random anonymous commenter? You really think they are going to rework all high school programs, get board approvals, and have a new set of applications by September? That's like 3 months away.

(If you/they mean it will "impact" them by the time they are seniors, then yes, it likely will and that's a valid concern. But it sounds like you are talking about the new regions and programs all being figured out and approved by September 2025 and implemented by August 2026 and that is clearly near-impossible logistically.)

[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:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

No vote yet, but this is the BOE’s chance to provide oversight and input before further decisions are made. This is going to be a major change, and MCPS is moving it along without any meaningful input from
The public or thr BOE. Like one of the PPs said, it’s a sham process. Say what you will about the boundary process, but they are communicating about it to the public and providing many ways to learn more and get input. This programs process is further along and yet the public knows nothing about it.

Then when is the vote? And why is there not multiple voted along the way? One to accept the new model, one for the allocation of problems and implementation process?

And why for the love of project management did the slides not contained a more fleshed out scheduled from July-Nov. At the least the next 3months. All they keep saying in Implementation planning. What the heck does that actually mean? When are they holding community conversations? When is the next update to the BOE/Community expected (even if not delivered at the board table)? When is final determination of program allocation? I don’t even work in HigherEd and based on their own presentations would have put together a skeleton timeline to track this through.

Taylor did tons of community discussions earlier in the year. This is their response. He promised transparency. More secrecy. He promised more safety measures. Not happening. He promised to help the kids in virtual. They shut the program down, many left and the new program sucks. They shut down an auto trade program, an autism program and did not open more early education claiming poverty. Now they are fully funded for next year but refuse to pay for virtual, more special needs programs and beef up the trades for kids who need it. And, no mention of the early education programs. They are talking about for special education teachers but it’s basically 2-3 per school which is nice but not a fix. No extra esol help. Why not teach core classes in Spanish and have intensive English classes or an immersion program for Spanish speakers so they can get an education. If it was done differently maybe with some of those kids we’d see better behavior. Imagine going into a classroom all day where you understand nothing, presumed dumb and little support. Of course these kids are struggling, acting out and dropping out. It could change the course of their lives and save the government money when they are adults. So many things mcps could do but they’d rather waste money than really make MCPS great.

Yup. At some point, you have to believe MCPS's actions and not their words. They will always say things that sound nice, but they'll never do the genuine work and effort it takes to make things better. Their intent is to pacify you with their words.

I think the is US Education generally. Instead of making bold new changes they keep tweaking at the corners. I know things take time, but something needs to change. I will credit Taylor with admitting that the current budget doesn’t have any innovation within it, but I don’t know how their going to achieve a goal of all McPS schools achieve a 4-star rating without innovation and change.

The problem is he's not doing anything about the budget but asking for more money. They need a line by line penny by penny audit, cut the waste and they'd have plenty of money for new classes, supports for ESOL, SN and other kids, creative innovative programs, programs for the behavior problems, virtual school and repairs/replacing schools that desperately need it. He inherited a mess but he knew what he was getting into and ultimately accountable.

Right now they are just rearranging, nothing new, innovative or really going to fix things.

I forget the numbers but 50 new security guards over 200 schools is better than nothing but just a band-aid. 700 SPED teachers (many of whom aren't really knowledgeable or trained) also is nice but with 200 schools, that's again a band-aid. Its not just SPED teachers we need, we need more speech, OT, para's, different classes to meet kids needs (both on the high and lower end - and smart ESOL kids who don't speak English as they still need to learn and why not have them learn in their language - surely there are enough students to run full spanish classes at each school with intensive english lessons as well - then they'd get a good education too).

Yes, but needing all those things does not mean we have the funds for all those things at the same time, nor the capacity to seek them out. There does have to be prioritization. And screams of cut the waste fall on deaf ears when people can’t come to the table and compromise on what should be cut. Getting more speech, OT, SPEd means being able to recruit them into MCPS or being able to contract for them. Many of whom can make more working in private practice. Security in schools is not just adding more and more people. New classes could mean new space, new curriculum, new training.

I’ll give them credit for instituting a program study because evaluation is needed on what needs to stay, what needs to go away, what should be expanded. Their communication and planning of this work needs to greatly improve and match the boundary study to which it’s align. I’ll fault the BOE for not doing a system wide boundary study and adjustment.

I’ll credit Taylor with saying the budget is basics and many things are going to need to be done multi-year. I’ll credit the team with coming up with a new strategic plan that builds on the prior one and noting more measures and accountability structures are needed. And while it’s not perfect it is definitely a huge step in the right direction. That said, Taylor and the BOE needs to discuss a clear vision of key things he wants to see changed or improved over the next 5 years. And white frankly that needs to be delivered in August.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

Someone upthread said the changes being made will impact the class of incoming 8th graders this year. So at this point, yes, parents want to know what is going on before this class gets something half cooked imposed upon them with no chance for parental feedback. Board members should want to know the details too if they're actually doing their jobs.

That is just obviously ridiculous. Maybe don't trust everything you read from a random anonymous commenter? You really think they are going to rework all high school programs, get board approvals, and have a new set of applications by September? That's like 3 months away.

(If you/they mean it will "impact" them by the time they are seniors, then yes, it likely will and that's a valid concern. But it sounds like you are talking about the new regions and programs all being figured out and approved by September 2025 and implemented by August 2026 and that is clearly near-impossible logistically.)

I have seen a copy of the slides that someone downloaded before it was taken down. Unfortunately in the example scenario slide, Sep 2026 is what was used for the example demonstration. Maybe that was a typo and that's why they took the slides down? But be prepared to be surprised this afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And it's a disaster, and since MCPS has been secretive about the entire process (what happened to transparency?), people are going to be horrified. Not only with the 6 zones, but how much change this will mean for our communities.

That this is being done along side the boundary study, but not with the boundary study, is malfeasance.

They don't have a real plan and have to justify the millions they spent on the consultant firm. Instead of central office coming up with logical boundaries, they blew millions that could have been better spent elsewhere. AI or the kids probably could have done better.

For WJ, take off 800-100 kids and send them to Woodard who are on the Woodward side, then take Garett Park, North Bethesda/Rockville and send them to Woodward. Done. Then, rebalance the other schools slightly. Add more funds/programs to the DCC to make it equal to the W school. Add a magnet program to Kennedy to make it a more attractive school. Make Einstein a true performing arts school - funding, staff, test in orchestra/bands like they do for VAPA and bring higher academics to it so students will stay. And, do something special with Northwood and some of the other schools, each getting something to draw kids. Or, turn one of the schools into a true magnet school and test in like TJ. There are a few BOE running everything and they have no clue what they are doing and and very bias and probably getting kickbacks. BOE members should not be working at MC in a position that is a liaison to MCPS, for example.

The BOE position doesn’t pay enough to tell anyone where they can or can’t work.

[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:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

No vote yet, but this is the BOE’s chance to provide oversight and input before further decisions are made. This is going to be a major change, and MCPS is moving it along without any meaningful input from
The public or thr BOE. Like one of the PPs said, it’s a sham process. Say what you will about the boundary process, but they are communicating about it to the public and providing many ways to learn more and get input. This programs process is further along and yet the public knows nothing about it.

Then when is the vote? And why is there not multiple voted along the way? One to accept the new model, one for the allocation of problems and implementation process?

And why for the love of project management did the slides not contained a more fleshed out scheduled from July-Nov. At the least the next 3months. All they keep saying in Implementation planning. What the heck does that actually mean? When are they holding community conversations? When is the next update to the BOE/Community expected (even if not delivered at the board table)? When is final determination of program allocation? I don’t even work in HigherEd and based on their own presentations would have put together a skeleton timeline to track this through.

Taylor did tons of community discussions earlier in the year. This is their response. He promised transparency. More secrecy. He promised more safety measures. Not happening. He promised to help the kids in virtual. They shut the program down, many left and the new program sucks. They shut down an auto trade program, an autism program and did not open more early education claiming poverty. Now they are fully funded for next year but refuse to pay for virtual, more special needs programs and beef up the trades for kids who need it. And, no mention of the early education programs. They are talking about for special education teachers but it’s basically 2-3 per school which is nice but not a fix. No extra esol help. Why not teach core classes in Spanish and have intensive English classes or an immersion program for Spanish speakers so they can get an education. If it was done differently maybe with some of those kids we’d see better behavior. Imagine going into a classroom all day where you understand nothing, presumed dumb and little support. Of course these kids are struggling, acting out and dropping out. It could change the course of their lives and save the government money when they are adults. So many things mcps could do but they’d rather waste money than really make MCPS great.

Yup. At some point, you have to believe MCPS's actions and not their words. They will always say things that sound nice, but they'll never do the genuine work and effort it takes to make things better. Their intent is to pacify you with their words.

I think the is US Education generally. Instead of making bold new changes they keep tweaking at the corners. I know things take time, but something needs to change. I will credit Taylor with admitting that the current budget doesn’t have any innovation within it, but I don’t know how their going to achieve a goal of all McPS schools achieve a 4-star rating without innovation and change.

The problem is he's not doing anything about the budget but asking for more money. They need a line by line penny by penny audit, cut the waste and they'd have plenty of money for new classes, supports for ESOL, SN and other kids, creative innovative programs, programs for the behavior problems, virtual school and repairs/replacing schools that desperately need it. He inherited a mess but he knew what he was getting into and ultimately accountable.

Right now they are just rearranging, nothing new, innovative or really going to fix things.

I forget the numbers but 50 new security guards over 200 schools is better than nothing but just a band-aid. 700 SPED teachers (many of whom aren't really knowledgeable or trained) also is nice but with 200 schools, that's again a band-aid. Its not just SPED teachers we need, we need more speech, OT, para's, different classes to meet kids needs (both on the high and lower end - and smart ESOL kids who don't speak English as they still need to learn and why not have them learn in their language - surely there are enough students to run full spanish classes at each school with intensive english lessons as well - then they'd get a good education too).

Yes, but needing all those things does not mean we have the funds for all those things at the same time, nor the capacity to seek them out. There does have to be prioritization. And screams of cut the waste fall on deaf ears when people can’t come to the table and compromise on what should be cut. Getting more speech, OT, SPEd means being able to recruit them into MCPS or being able to contract for them. Many of whom can make more working in private practice. Security in schools is not just adding more and more people. New classes could mean new space, new curriculum, new training.

I’ll give them credit for instituting a program study because evaluation is needed on what needs to stay, what needs to go away, what should be expanded. Their communication and planning of this work needs to greatly improve and match the boundary study to which it’s align. I’ll fault the BOE for not doing a system wide boundary study and adjustment.

I’ll credit Taylor with saying the budget is basics and many things are going to need to be done multi-year. I’ll credit the team with coming up with a new strategic plan that builds on the prior one and noting more measures and accountability structures are needed. And while it’s not perfect it is definitely a huge step in the right direction. That said, Taylor and the BOE needs to discuss a clear vision of key things he wants to see changed or improved over the next 5 years. And white frankly that needs to be delivered in August.

They could have spent the budget to improve/alleviate any of the aforementioned programs/issues with some prioritization. But instead, they decide to spend the big chunk to build new HSs and use that as the excuse to not fix any problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

Someone upthread said the changes being made will impact the class of incoming 8th graders this year. So at this point, yes, parents want to know what is going on before this class gets something half cooked imposed upon them with no chance for parental feedback. Board members should want to know the details too if they're actually doing their jobs.

The slides show the changes will happen in 2027. So it will impact rising 7th graders

. I thought they meant FY/SY 2027 so as in the 26/27 school year. The implementation is supposed to started this coming January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

I’m sure it’s tricky. I remember seeing a slide about responses to the boundary study, and I noted that a much larger share of responses had come from W clusters. The DCC was much less represented. While I am sure the BOE is interested in feedback, I’m sure they note that not all perspectives are equally represented.

As a DCC family, I know they don’t care about us so why bother. They will make their decisions and we will make our decisions accordingly. Worst case for us is we do a private virtual school or go private which we may anyway as we have no choice as one of my kids is struggling to get all the graduation requirements in due to lack of offerings.

All high schools offer classes for graduation. This doesn’t make sense

No, they don't. If your child starts Algebra in 6th they don't have enough math and are missing a year (assuming one year is AP stats).

That kids should take a DE class. The amount of kids starting Algebra in 6th super small.

[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:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

No vote yet, but this is the BOE’s chance to provide oversight and input before further decisions are made. This is going to be a major change, and MCPS is moving it along without any meaningful input from
The public or thr BOE. Like one of the PPs said, it’s a sham process. Say what you will about the boundary process, but they are communicating about it to the public and providing many ways to learn more and get input. This programs process is further along and yet the public knows nothing about it.

Then when is the vote? And why is there not multiple voted along the way? One to accept the new model, one for the allocation of problems and implementation process?

And why for the love of project management did the slides not contained a more fleshed out scheduled from July-Nov. At the least the next 3months. All they keep saying in Implementation planning. What the heck does that actually mean? When are they holding community conversations? When is the next update to the BOE/Community expected (even if not delivered at the board table)? When is final determination of program allocation? I don’t even work in HigherEd and based on their own presentations would have put together a skeleton timeline to track this through.

Taylor did tons of community discussions earlier in the year. This is their response. He promised transparency. More secrecy. He promised more safety measures. Not happening. He promised to help the kids in virtual. They shut the program down, many left and the new program sucks. They shut down an auto trade program, an autism program and did not open more early education claiming poverty. Now they are fully funded for next year but refuse to pay for virtual, more special needs programs and beef up the trades for kids who need it. And, no mention of the early education programs. They are talking about for special education teachers but it’s basically 2-3 per school which is nice but not a fix. No extra esol help. Why not teach core classes in Spanish and have intensive English classes or an immersion program for Spanish speakers so they can get an education. If it was done differently maybe with some of those kids we’d see better behavior. Imagine going into a classroom all day where you understand nothing, presumed dumb and little support. Of course these kids are struggling, acting out and dropping out. It could change the course of their lives and save the government money when they are adults. So many things mcps could do but they’d rather waste money than really make MCPS great.

Yup. At some point, you have to believe MCPS's actions and not their words. They will always say things that sound nice, but they'll never do the genuine work and effort it takes to make things better. Their intent is to pacify you with their words.

I think the is US Education generally. Instead of making bold new changes they keep tweaking at the corners. I know things take time, but something needs to change. I will credit Taylor with admitting that the current budget doesn’t have any innovation within it, but I don’t know how their going to achieve a goal of all McPS schools achieve a 4-star rating without innovation and change.

The problem is he's not doing anything about the budget but asking for more money. They need a line by line penny by penny audit, cut the waste and they'd have plenty of money for new classes, supports for ESOL, SN and other kids, creative innovative programs, programs for the behavior problems, virtual school and repairs/replacing schools that desperately need it. He inherited a mess but he knew what he was getting into and ultimately accountable.

Right now they are just rearranging, nothing new, innovative or really going to fix things.

I forget the numbers but 50 new security guards over 200 schools is better than nothing but just a band-aid. 700 SPED teachers (many of whom aren't really knowledgeable or trained) also is nice but with 200 schools, that's again a band-aid. Its not just SPED teachers we need, we need more speech, OT, para's, different classes to meet kids needs (both on the high and lower end - and smart ESOL kids who don't speak English as they still need to learn and why not have them learn in their language - surely there are enough students to run full spanish classes at each school with intensive english lessons as well - then they'd get a good education too).

Yes, but needing all those things does not mean we have the funds for all those things at the same time, nor the capacity to seek them out. There does have to be prioritization. And screams of cut the waste fall on deaf ears when people can’t come to the table and compromise on what should be cut. Getting more speech, OT, SPEd means being able to recruit them into MCPS or being able to contract for them. Many of whom can make more working in private practice. Security in schools is not just adding more and more people. New classes could mean new space, new curriculum, new training.

I’ll give them credit for instituting a program study because evaluation is needed on what needs to stay, what needs to go away, what should be expanded. Their communication and planning of this work needs to greatly improve and match the boundary study to which it’s align. I’ll fault the BOE for not doing a system wide boundary study and adjustment.

I’ll credit Taylor with saying the budget is basics and many things are going to need to be done multi-year. I’ll credit the team with coming up with a new strategic plan that builds on the prior one and noting more measures and accountability structures are needed. And while it’s not perfect it is definitely a huge step in the right direction. That said, Taylor and the BOE needs to discuss a clear vision of key things he wants to see changed or improved over the next 5 years. And white frankly that needs to be delivered in August.

They could have spent the budget to improve/alleviate any of the aforementioned programs/issues with some prioritization. But instead, they decide to spend the big chunk to build new HSs and use that as the excuse to not fix any problems.

Building a new HS is a different budget. That’s the CIP. What we’re discussing is the Operating budget. Now staffing the new schools, that will be in the Operating Budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

Someone upthread said the changes being made will impact the class of incoming 8th graders this year. So at this point, yes, parents want to know what is going on before this class gets something half cooked imposed upon them with no chance for parental feedback. Board members should want to know the details too if they're actually doing their jobs.

The slides show the changes will happen in 2027. So it will impact rising 7th graders

Has the central office shared these slides? With a billion dollar budget, it would be the bare minimum to communicate items that are being publicly discussed by its Board today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

Someone upthread said the changes being made will impact the class of incoming 8th graders this year. So at this point, yes, parents want to know what is going on before this class gets something half cooked imposed upon them with no chance for parental feedback. Board members should want to know the details too if they're actually doing their jobs.

That is just obviously ridiculous. Maybe don't trust everything you read from a random anonymous commenter? You really think they are going to rework all high school programs, get board approvals, and have a new set of applications by September? That's like 3 months away.

(If you/they mean it will "impact" them by the time they are seniors, then yes, it likely will and that's a valid concern. But it sounds like you are talking about the new regions and programs all being figured out and approved by September 2025 and implemented by August 2026 and that is clearly near-impossible logistically.)

I have seen a copy of the slides that someone downloaded before it was taken down. Unfortunately in the example scenario slide, Sep 2026 is what was used for the example demonstration. Maybe that was a typo and that's why they took the slides down? But be prepared to be surprised this afternoon.

I saw the slides and the example was two incoming 9th graders in fall 2027. So they’d be incoming 7th graders this fall.

There seems to be confusion about what “implementation” means. I think what they mean is not that the programs are up and running with students, but that they start setting in motion plans for which schools will have what and figuring out what physical things are needed (certain labs for science ones or theater or dance space for performing arts ones) and determining the staffing and the admissions materials and processes and curricular training and number of seats, etc.