When is the plan for new HS programs coming out?

[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).

I don’t think any students should be taking Algebra in 6th unless there are very extenuating circumstances like the student already took all the prior courses in a different country or jurisdiction, not just that they have high map scores and took outside prep courses and asked for special permission. It’s not necessary to accelerate in that way even for the brightest 6th graders.

[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.

Can you post the slides, or a link to them on Google drive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I don’t think any students should be taking Algebra in 6th unless there are very extenuating circumstances like the student already took all the prior courses in a different country or jurisdiction, not just that they have high map scores and took outside prep courses and asked for special permission. It’s not necessary to accelerate in that way even for the brightest 6th graders.

It's a good thing that for our kids, no one cares what you think. It's worked out well for my kids. Many of these kids aren't challenged and hate the strategies so going into Algebra makes them interested in math again. They aren't going into special classes, they are already offering it at the schools so the kids just go in with the 7th graders. My kids didn't do outside prep, but we worked with them ourselves, as the math curriculum was lacking with the needed foundation work for math.

Its also a way to draw kids to schools that they wouldn't go to to boost scores for those schools, just like the magnets.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

What labs? My kids did no labs or hands on in Chemistry or Biology.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

What labs? My kids did no labs or hands on in Chemistry or Biology.

For the science magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I don’t think any students should be taking Algebra in 6th unless there are very extenuating circumstances like the student already took all the prior courses in a different country or jurisdiction, not just that they have high map scores and took outside prep courses and asked for special permission. It’s not necessary to accelerate in that way even for the brightest 6th graders.

There are even students who are super bored at taking algebra at 6th grade. I know kids taking precalculus at Aops at 8th grade after finishing geometry at 6th and algebra 2 at 7th. They also compete AMC 10 at middle school and qualify for AIME. These kind of kids deserve Blair which has very in depth math and offer linear agelbra and discrete mathematics. Giving them another mediocre regional so called magnet is a disservice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I don’t think any students should be taking Algebra in 6th unless there are very extenuating circumstances like the student already took all the prior courses in a different country or jurisdiction, not just that they have high map scores and took outside prep courses and asked for special permission. It’s not necessary to accelerate in that way even for the brightest 6th graders.

+1. There's no need to rush. Parents need to chill out.

[Anonymous]

For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

I don’t understand why this kind of narrative continues to prevail. Whether it’s countywide or regional magnet programs, they only serve a small minority of students. Take TJ in Fairfax, for example — it’s the same case. So why can’t MCPS offer the same level of opportunity that Fairfax County does? Are we just inferior to our neighbors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

? IEP, 504, EML, virtual, and a host of other "special" needs that MCPS caters to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

? IEP, 504, EML, virtual, and a host of other "special" needs that MCPS caters to.

Aren’t most of those required by law? Unlike DiffEQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

I don’t understand why this kind of narrative continues to prevail. Whether it’s countywide or regional magnet programs, they only serve a small minority of students. Take TJ in Fairfax, for example — it’s the same case. So why can’t MCPS offer the same level of opportunity that Fairfax County does? Are we just inferior to our neighbors?

It’s about resources. There are limited resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I don’t think any students should be taking Algebra in 6th unless there are very extenuating circumstances like the student already took all the prior courses in a different country or jurisdiction, not just that they have high map scores and took outside prep courses and asked for special permission. It’s not necessary to accelerate in that way even for the brightest 6th graders.

There are even students who are super bored at taking algebra at 6th grade. I know kids taking precalculus at Aops at 8th grade after finishing geometry at 6th and algebra 2 at 7th. They also compete AMC 10 at middle school and qualify for AIME. These kind of kids deserve Blair which has very in depth math and offer linear agelbra and discrete mathematics. Giving them another mediocre regional so called magnet is a disservice.

Blair only has 100 slots and at least 800-900 students applying. Yeah for them for doing AOPS what ever that is but that's not relevant as you still have to take the MCPS classes. Its not about deserving or not, its about all students who are able to have the same opportunities. Many are not bored in Algebra in 6ths as you have the super high achieving, then the high achieving and many levels in between. All those kids should get served and at least be given MV. Linear algebra and discrete math would be a bonus as for kids in 6th they can easily take MV and Linear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

I don’t understand why this kind of narrative continues to prevail. Whether it’s countywide or regional magnet programs, they only serve a small minority of students. Take TJ in Fairfax, for example — it’s the same case. So why can’t MCPS offer the same level of opportunity that Fairfax County does? Are we just inferior to our neighbors?

It’s about resources. There are limited resources.

It wouldn't cost that much more to do one school as a TJ or upper level school, especially in the DCC. Or even take 1000 students and put them in one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you with super special bright children, good for you. But this is public school and it cannot cater to the needs of a tiny minority.

The problem is its not a tiny minority in MCPS as you draw many bright students given the area and many bright parents.