MCPS planning very limited regional program transportation (HS pickups only)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the OP for sharing this update. It's infuriating! If this is really the plan, the regional programs will be a failure, with limited participation. It will be a step backwards for the current regional progams (like the IB programs in the NEC and DCC), which currently have neighborhood stops; switching to high school stops only will likely make these programs far less appealing or feasible for many families, and the new programs will suffer in the same way.

I wrote to the Board of Ed about this when this plan was first being discussed back in November, highlighting the inequities and impossibilities of this plan. I am going to write again now in the (probably futile) hope that the Board will question this prior to voting. I encourage others to do the same.

Taylor has been a disaster for our school district. Because, obviously, as it turns out, we don't have the transportation resources to implement this grand plan. He is implementing 100 regional programs of unknown quality that few people will be able to get to. Did no one ask him, if you build it, can anyone get there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the OP for sharing this update. It's infuriating! If this is really the plan, the regional programs will be a failure, with limited participation. It will be a step backwards for the current regional progams (like the IB programs in the NEC and DCC), which currently have neighborhood stops; switching to high school stops only will likely make these programs far less appealing or feasible for many families, and the new programs will suffer in the same way.

I wrote to the Board of Ed about this when this plan was first being discussed back in November, highlighting the inequities and impossibilities of this plan. I am going to write again now in the (probably futile) hope that the Board will question this prior to voting. I encourage others to do the same.

I heard a Board member say a few months ago that Taylor told her he wants there to be more extensive bus routes, and that seemed to satisfy her. Please flag for Board members if you email them that that's not what MCPS is actually saying now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could have foreseen that rushing to create an entirely new, much larger system of programs without adequate resources or any input from stakeholders would have drawbacks? It’s shocking.

Indeed! Who woulda thought?

If only somebody had said something, created a petition, etc. Surely MCPS would have been convinced of the obvious if only someone had just alerted them to the issue s/

There are at least two petitions, one started by a Poolsville magnet teacher to fight for keeping county-wide magnets, and the other from a DCC parent. Both of them had received well more than 1500+ signatures and they pinned BOE members so they should have been aware. In the meantime, MCCPTA, MCEA, and a number of organizations sent public letters to either oppose or call for a delay of the regional program. County council members originally called for a detailed layout of costs and staffing discussion with MCPS in December, but I don't recall that happens actually. Nothing works. Nothing slows down the pacing of these crazy people who slaughter the existing successful programs.

[Anonymous]

Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

That is not accurate-- please don't email with inaccurate information or you will not have credibility. The budget increase for the regional programs for this coming year is only a couple million dollars, not $10M. (It will very likely swell way past that when they actually implement it, but it is not yet.)

[Anonymous]

Have they ever presented how much the new regional models is going to cost. How can they vote to approve something without knowing its cost?

[Anonymous]

Why are there so many special regional programs? The presentation on Monday said just Woodward is going to have 7 programs. There's no reason to be that specialized as a high school student. Just stick with math/science, IB, and arts/music, that would be much simpler for kids to understand and the county to implement. And how does having such specialized programs increase equity when the programs are different in each region? Someone in Magruder being able to access an aviation program that's not available to anyone outside of that region is not equal.

[Anonymous]

I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

The immersion programs have central stops, but typically the neighborhood elementary schools are included in the stop list. Practically speaking that's a lot more stops and it's a lot closer to more people's places of residence.

For example being in close in Silver Spring, my kids do actually attend an immersion program and there is a bus stop 5 minutes walking from our house (home ES). Our home high school is 3 miles away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

That is not accurate-- please don't email with inaccurate information or you will not have credibility. The budget increase for the regional programs for this coming year is only a couple million dollars, not $10M. (It will very likely swell way past that when they actually implement it, but it is not yet.)

My bad. Just went on checking the actual numbers. Could you kindly cross-check with me?
I'm looking at the executive summary table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G_ub9T6wW2tXU0yCtfWjQqM4ij5e_TxOrclMvoOPzs/edit?gid=252197658#gid=252197658

Looks to me that Item #56 and #57 are direct personnel hires related to the planning of regional programs:
56 Special Education Behavioral Support 6.0000 1,001,166 4 Additional Cross Functional Team positions for behavioral support - 1/Region
57 Regional Programs Support 10.0000 922,815 3 & 9 School based personnel to plan for and support regional program model

So a total of 16 full-time FTE with $2 million cost next year for planning. Is this a correct estimation? I'm now trying to dig out the operating budget estimation that Taylor presented in one of the recent BOE meetings (maybe November?), where his estimated total cost of all regional programs is ~ $10 million/year (including transportation). Planning takes $2 million, and looks like these job functions need to stay in the future. Already 20% of the total cost, and we haven't started to hire a single teacher or bus driver yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

As PPs have said, the difference here is that other magnets (immersion, CES, middle school, and current high school programs) tend to have either neighborhood or local ES pick-ups and drop-offs. They might not be perfect, and I have heard some complaints, but my experience at all three levels was that the local ES was a pick-up/drop-off point. So my kids just needed to get to the local ES, and they were picked up in time (often very early) to get to the magnet program on time (usually).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before my kid started MCPS I used to not fully understand all the complaining. But we are only 1.5 years in and I just can't with these people. This is all just a huge, expensive distraction from the reality that they are graduating a large majority of kids not graduate proficient in math and reading.

Yep - how much is this regional disaster going to cost us?

And in the meantime, the school district is writing its own English Language Arts curriculum for high schools. You might have wondered why that refrigerator curriculum looked haphazard and cast such a low bar. Why can't we buy externally developed and externally evaluated curriculum as the Maryland Blueprint requires? Because we are spending untold millions on implementing up to 100 ill-designed regional programs that will also utilize homemade curriculum.

hahahaha.. another 2.0 disaster. My kids started MCPS when they implemented 2.0, and I was willing to give it a chance. I defended it on this forum. What I dummy I was. 2.0 was a freakin disaster and MCPS thinks they can write their own curriculum at the HS level?

So glad we are done with MCPS this spring.

HS level curricula have been MCPS-created, including the Magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

That is not accurate-- please don't email with inaccurate information or you will not have credibility. The budget increase for the regional programs for this coming year is only a couple million dollars, not $10M. (It will very likely swell way past that when they actually implement it, but it is not yet.)

My bad. Just went on checking the actual numbers. Could you kindly cross-check with me?
I'm looking at the executive summary table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G_ub9T6wW2tXU0yCtfWjQqM4ij5e_TxOrclMvoOPzs/edit?gid=252197658#gid=252197658

Looks to me that Item #56 and #57 are direct personnel hires related to the planning of regional programs:
56 Special Education Behavioral Support 6.0000 1,001,166 4 Additional Cross Functional Team positions for behavioral support - 1/Region
57 Regional Programs Support 10.0000 922,815 3 & 9 School based personnel to plan for and support regional program model

So a total of 16 full-time FTE with $2 million cost next year for planning. Is this a correct estimation? I'm now trying to dig out the operating budget estimation that Taylor presented in one of the recent BOE meetings (maybe November?), where his estimated total cost of all regional programs is ~ $10 million/year (including transportation). Planning takes $2 million, and looks like these job functions need to stay in the future. Already 20% of the total cost, and we haven't started to hire a single teacher or bus driver yet.

OK, found it. Here is Taylor's proposed budget for EVERYTHING included for the regional model:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

Anyone here believes this budget could work??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before my kid started MCPS I used to not fully understand all the complaining. But we are only 1.5 years in and I just can't with these people. This is all just a huge, expensive distraction from the reality that they are graduating a large majority of kids not graduate proficient in math and reading.

Yep - how much is this regional disaster going to cost us?

And in the meantime, the school district is writing its own English Language Arts curriculum for high schools. You might have wondered why that refrigerator curriculum looked haphazard and cast such a low bar. Why can't we buy externally developed and externally evaluated curriculum as the Maryland Blueprint requires? Because we are spending untold millions on implementing up to 100 ill-designed regional programs that will also utilize homemade curriculum.

hahahaha.. another 2.0 disaster. My kids started MCPS when they implemented 2.0, and I was willing to give it a chance. I defended it on this forum. What I dummy I was. 2.0 was a freakin disaster and MCPS thinks they can write their own curriculum at the HS level?

So glad we are done with MCPS this spring.

HS level curricula have been MCPS-created, including the Magnets.

Magnet curriculum is created essentially by a handful of talented teachers targeted at the current magnet student body. For example, discrete math follows the AOPS intermediate number theory with adding in a lot of college-level proofing concepts, which is too easy for students who regularly attend various math competitions, but too hard to students who only master AP Calc and AP stat but do not have math competition experience. Now we are talking about implementing this course to 6 programs with largely diluted math competitor student body. This equals to a death announcement for this course basically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen if the board didn't pass the regional model since all of the boundary study data and recommendations assume the regional model is getting implemented.

It wouldn't make much difference-- they're just making up numbers of how many kids will leave from or go to different schools (for example, that 400 Whitman students are going to leave Whitman for regional programs at Northwood, Einstein, Blair, and BCC-- yeah right.) And even with the made-up numbers, the regional programs only shift enrollment projections by 100 or less kids either way in most cases, and that's when fully implemented for all 4 grades (so probably only a few dozen different in year one.)

Yeah I saw that slide too and had a big laugh over that.

Thanks to the OP for posting and confirming what we all thought was the case.