Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The challenges are many:
How many students will participate?
How will they both find trained teachers for the new programs, and, fund those teachers salaries?
How will they fund all the additional busses and bus drivers taking all the students to the new programs?
How much congestion will this add to our already congested roads?

I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind right now

Start small and increase later based on findings.

For example,

Have 30 kids in 5 programs. Keep it to 5 and 30 kids so we get 150 kids in each region. 4-5 HS together, it won't be hard to find 150 kids to fill the spot. I suspect demand may be higher in many placeces but let;s start with 150 kids in region. 5-6 regions, we get 900 kids in programs.

I am sure that we have way to kids doing busssing all over county in various programs in random places which has far more distance. Get rid of them. I listed 30 but it can be 45 ion each program and I have no idea the level of interest and staffing situation. That's why start with 30 and scale based on resource/interest in next few years.

Just make sure to offer MVC in all high school even if 10 kids are interested. Given 2 years integrated Algebra , it's just unfair to not have that in each HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

I think MCPS should have tolerance for having a class with lets say 10 kids instead of 25 needed to run a class for MVC and Physics C. With integrated algebra , most kids will need one extra math course in HS and they should be taught in their home school instead of virtual. Virtual should be last option if lets say only 2-3 kdis in one HS are interested.

[Anonymous]

People are getting over hyped for no reason. Just wait and see no point in discussing what we can’t control. MCPS will just do whatever they want so stop wasting your energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are getting over hyped for no reason. Just wait and see no point in discussing what we can’t control. MCPS will just do whatever they want so stop wasting your energy.

Go cry in a corner and let the world wash over you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're using one enrollment model when looking the boundary study options, and are potentially changing the enrollment model with regional programming, doesn't that potentially change enrollment patterns and projections in the boundary study? Or am I missing something?

I had the same question. Boundary study can't be done in isolation.

Some basic numbers should be made available for enrollment in these programs. That way capacity utilization can be done properly otherwise we may end up with lopsided outcomes due to mixing both without using data.

Yah, for example if we have something like this,

Science, Math, and Technology - Woodward
Performing Art - Woodward

Information Technology, Engineering, & Robotics - Wheaton
Health and Human Services - Wheaton

Global Humanities and Leadership - WJ
Finance, Entrepreneurship, and Marketing - WJ


Education and Public Service - Churchill

Here Churchill will have only one program other schools will have 2. Boundary and capacity utilization can be done better if we have enrollment numbers for programs in various schools.

If boundaries are redrawn without knowing what programs are going where, it seems like there would still be the risk of overcrowded and underused schools. I don't understand why they didn't do both studies together. It really seems like this should be integrated. Or, at the very least, communicated holistically even if the studies are separate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

I think MCPS should have tolerance for having a class with lets say 10 kids instead of 25 needed to run a class for MVC and Physics C. With integrated algebra , most kids will need one extra math course in HS and they should be taught in their home school instead of virtual. Virtual should be last option if lets say only 2-3 kdis in one HS are interested.

Agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are getting over hyped for no reason. Just wait and see no point in discussing what we can’t control. MCPS will just do whatever they want so stop wasting your energy.

Go cry in a corner and let the world wash over you.

Reality is the statement is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The challenges are many:
How many students will participate?
How will they both find trained teachers for the new programs, and, fund those teachers salaries?
How will they fund all the additional busses and bus drivers taking all the students to the new programs?
How much congestion will this add to our already congested roads?

I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind right now

Start small and increase later based on findings.

For example,

Have 30 kids in 5 programs. Keep it to 5 and 30 kids so we get 150 kids in each region. 4-5 HS together, it won't be hard to find 150 kids to fill the spot. I suspect demand may be higher in many placeces but let;s start with 150 kids in region. 5-6 regions, we get 900 kids in programs.

I am sure that we have way to kids doing busssing all over county in various programs in random places which has far more distance. Get rid of them. I listed 30 but it can be 45 ion each program and I have no idea the level of interest and staffing situation. That's why start with 30 and scale based on resource/interest in next few years.

Just make sure to offer MVC in all high school even if 10 kids are interested. Given 2 years integrated Algebra , it's just unfair to not have that in each HS.

If Mv is an option, more kids will do it as time goes on but at our school kids are discouraged from taking advanced math by admin and counselors. We had to go to the head of math for support and approval and it was a big drama. Mv should be a standard class. Virtual can be as good or better with the right teacher but they’d have to align class schedules at all schools and have someone supervise it so at some point since MCPS says virtual is bad, they should just have a teacher teaching it in house. Why is virtual ok for some things and not all. I’m still curious to see the data from the virtual school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

I think MCPS should have tolerance for having a class with lets say 10 kids instead of 25 needed to run a class for MVC and Physics C. With integrated algebra , most kids will need one extra math course in HS and they should be taught in their home school instead of virtual. Virtual should be last option if lets say only 2-3 kdis in one HS are interested.

My kids HS honors English and later AP Lit had over 35 kids in it, no, they shouldn't run any class with just 10 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

I think MCPS should have tolerance for having a class with lets say 10 kids instead of 25 needed to run a class for MVC and Physics C. With integrated algebra , most kids will need one extra math course in HS and they should be taught in their home school instead of virtual. Virtual should be last option if lets say only 2-3 kdis in one HS are interested.

My kids HS honors English and later AP Lit had over 35 kids in it, no, they shouldn't run any class with just 10 kids.

One has nothing to d with another. That’s a typical class size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

I think MCPS should have tolerance for having a class with lets say 10 kids instead of 25 needed to run a class for MVC and Physics C. With integrated algebra , most kids will need one extra math course in HS and they should be taught in their home school instead of virtual. Virtual should be last option if lets say only 2-3 kdis in one HS are interested.

My kids HS honors English and later AP Lit had over 35 kids in it, no, they shouldn't run any class with just 10 kids.

In a school with lower demand they should figure out a way for the 10 kids to take the class.

[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:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

I think MCPS should have tolerance for having a class with lets say 10 kids instead of 25 needed to run a class for MVC and Physics C. With integrated algebra , most kids will need one extra math course in HS and they should be taught in their home school instead of virtual. Virtual should be last option if lets say only 2-3 kdis in one HS are interested.

My kids HS honors English and later AP Lit had over 35 kids in it, no, they shouldn't run any class with just 10 kids.

In a school with lower demand they should figure out a way for the 10 kids to take the class.

They do for compacted math. We've had English and other classes with 10 kids as they had 40+ in a class and they split the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, I think they have a lot more work to do on this. Maybe they should pilot it in the DCC first. Problem is, I know the DCC loves those programs. I don’t mind that they have it and we don’t. I think these unique things make mcps special.

They seem to want to make it very bland and the same everywhere. Granted, I think every school should have plenty of APs.

"The DCC" is not a person

lol 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 1 but with magnet programs moved to Northwood and Einstein (lowest utilization) to shift some population there in lieu of Blair and Wheaton.

Magnets are for whites and Asians
No thanks