7/24 BOE meeting thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am assuming the new STEM program will get nothing like the current SMCS with all the electives and functions and research projects? Will it just be more like the academy style system with a few extra classes?

Taylor suggested today that the Blair magnet program would remain at Blair, but it would just serve the one region.

They’ll make it equitable by removing the challenging classes and make every regions equal in the classes offered.

[Anonymous]

I'm highly skeptical that MCPS can serve kids grandfathered into the existing countywide and consortia program models AND simultaneously stand up and transition into the regional program models.

While it sounds nice, that would require a level of planning, coordination and competence from MCPS that I have never seen before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm highly skeptical that MCPS can serve kids grandfathered into the existing countywide and consortia program models AND simultaneously stand up and transition into the regional program models.

While it sounds nice, that would require a level of planning, coordination and competence from MCPS that I have never seen before.

I'm not sure how they'll afford transportation for this plan. Between Metro and Ride-on DCC has population density, and a lot of bus options. The more suburban and rural parts of the county do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last map here, option 5, is what the new region proposal is:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ6D678692/$file/Attachment%20A%20Program%20Study%20Regions%20Options%20250724.pdf

Except they are using existing high school boundaries and zones to inform their numbers (utilization, demographics) but these numbers are all wrong because the zones will change!

+1 so dumb to use current cluster maps

[Anonymous]

I have a child who would be the inaugural class of this change, and the change looks reasonable to me.

Change is hard, but there have long been more kids capable of doing magnet-level work than spots available. Creating new, diverse, regions and expanding magnet offerings is a common-sense solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm highly skeptical that MCPS can serve kids grandfathered into the existing countywide and consortia program models AND simultaneously stand up and transition into the regional program models.

While it sounds nice, that would require a level of planning, coordination and competence from MCPS that I have never seen before.

I'm not sure how they'll afford transportation for this plan. Between Metro and Ride-on DCC has population density, and a lot of bus options. The more suburban and rural parts of the county do not.

Exactly. And this is on top of the complex split articulation in the boundary study, which would require sending two buses to neighborhood where the 6th and 7th graders would go to one school while 8th graders stay at original school and same for two years as 9th/10th graders are moved and 11th/12th graders stay out. How is this all going to work out??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm highly skeptical that MCPS can serve kids grandfathered into the existing countywide and consortia program models AND simultaneously stand up and transition into the regional program models.

While it sounds nice, that would require a level of planning, coordination and competence from MCPS that I have never seen before.

I'm not sure how they'll afford transportation for this plan. Between Metro and Ride-on DCC has population density, and a lot of bus options. The more suburban and rural parts of the county do not.

Exactly. And this is on top of the complex split articulation in the boundary study, which would require sending two buses to neighborhood where the 6th and 7th graders would go to one school while 8th graders stay at original school and same for two years as 9th/10th graders are moved and 11th/12th graders stay out. How is this all going to work out??

Stay *put*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm highly skeptical that MCPS can serve kids grandfathered into the existing countywide and consortia program models AND simultaneously stand up and transition into the regional program models.

While it sounds nice, that would require a level of planning, coordination and competence from MCPS that I have never seen before.

I'm not sure how they'll afford transportation for this plan. Between Metro and Ride-on DCC has population density, and a lot of bus options. The more suburban and rural parts of the county do not.

Exactly. And this is on top of the complex split articulation in the boundary study, which would require sending two buses to neighborhood where the 6th and 7th graders would go to one school while 8th graders stay at original school and same for two years as 9th/10th graders are moved and 11th/12th graders stay out. How is this all going to work out??

I hope next round of boundary options will not produce so many splits. Split articulations are disruptive to neighborhoods and should be minimized to the extent that is absolutely unavoidable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am assuming the new STEM program will get nothing like the current SMCS with all the electives and functions and research projects? Will it just be more like the academy style system with a few extra classes?

Aren't there like 15 different math and science classes at Blair? It's not really necessary to have that many in every school, or even at Blair, is it? Which are the ones that are really important?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last map here, option 5, is what the new region proposal is:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ6D678692/$file/Attachment%20A%20Program%20Study%20Regions%20Options%20250724.pdf

Except they are using existing high school boundaries and zones to inform their numbers (utilization, demographics) but these numbers are all wrong because the zones will change!

+1 so dumb to use current cluster maps

True, but they don't have any other maps to use yet, so I can see why they did that just to have a general idea. Maybe this signals they are leaning away from boundary options that will be wildly different from the present ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a child who would be the inaugural class of this change, and the change looks reasonable to me.

Change is hard, but there have long been more kids capable of doing magnet-level work than spots available. Creating new, diverse, regions and expanding magnet offerings is a common-sense solution.

Those are nice sentiments, but your post doesn’t address the actual logistical challenges presented by this plan. You call the plan reasonable; please explain how it is even feasible, let alone reasonable.

Do you have any children who have already participated in one of the existing high school magnet programs? I have a senior who has experienced a CES and magnets for middle school and high school. I’m surprised that anyone whose child will be in high school during this transition would support it. Significant and widespread changes will not roll out smoothly. There will be disparities in the implementation between regions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last map here, option 5, is what the new region proposal is:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ6D678692/$file/Attachment%20A%20Program%20Study%20Regions%20Options%20250724.pdf

Except they are using existing high school boundaries and zones to inform their numbers (utilization, demographics) but these numbers are all wrong because the zones will change!

+1 so dumb to use current cluster maps

True, but they don't have any other maps to use yet, so I can see why they did that just to have a general idea. Maybe this signals they are leaning away from boundary options that will be wildly different from the present ones.

I wouldn’t read into that because it’s two different groups working on this and I don’t think the program analysis people have any idea what the boundary change people are planning to put forth next. The members of the Board don’t seem to be looped into any of this information any more than normal constituents, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why, why, why can't we just work on 26 strong high schools that all offer a variety of leveled work? Why can't all students just go to their zoned school? What if we used all of this money from their "Research," buses, program procurement etc, to add more teachers to the county and reduce the size of classes? Why does everyone need a program?

+1

Have all students attend their zoned schools and just focus on making them all strong. Utilize virtual education and dual enrollment if needed to add rigor and equality. Stop wasting money.

Great. Except the virtual/dual enrollment bit, which is a huge equity issue, offering a diminished experience and/or additional burdens.

If you want local-only schools, vote to provide enough differential funding to allow all of the same classes to be available at each local school whenever there is a student who qualifies for them. You might have to pay more in taxes, of course, or be willing not to have certain classes offered at any school if the funding can't be found to resource them at every school.

Virtual makes it accessible. Dual enrollment is not due to transportation.

Virtual may be accessible, but it's not as effective. The classes, at least those within core subjects, need to be available in-person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens to Kennedy’s LTI program, which is a signature program for the school but was not listed as one of the leadership programs under the new regional model in the presentation?

Also, they addressed that the countywide IB program will be eliminated but what about the local ones at Einstein, BCC and Rockville?

Look at how many graduate is from these schools! Very few.

Very few IBDPs from BCC?

The reason few graduate IB has as much to do with the low-level implementations at the rest of these schools not presenting a compelling academic profile to pursue for those who might as it might have to do with the capabilities of the students at the school, and that may have more to do with systematically lower levels of preparation from feeder schools than any innate difference in capability.

I'd posit that this is a case of, "If you build it, they will come," with "it" being a holistic commitment to high-level programming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Five regional programs proposed:

Medical Science and Healthcare
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
International Baccalaureate, Humanities and Languages
Leadership and Public Service, Education
Visual & Performing Arts, Design, and Communication

Plus at every school: Business, Finance and Entrepreneurial and Financial Literacy

This is silly and budding kids all over town for their choice is not equitable. If you bus long distances after school transportation is a huge issue.

The only people being bussed would be opting to do so.

Many families don’t have cars or easy transportation cross county. There is no easy way by public transportation to get to Whitman from DCC without a car which means these kids continue to go without classes they need if all schools don’t have advanced classes. I don’t know about you but we could not make it work.

Bus & Purple Line, baby!