New presentation & FAQ up for program analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the students who are dropped off at their local high school have another bus to take them the last mile(s) home? Or are they stuck at the high school with no further transportation?

No, they timing will not line up so you need to get them there to/from.

So how exactly is that supposed to work? Will the regional programs be like Whitman Social Justice program where only kids from that host high school attend because working parents whose kids don’t live walking distance can’t do daily drop off and pick up.

It's not supposed to work except to make Taylor feel all powerful about getting rid of the DCC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

I think the current MCPS teachers can teach at a performing arts magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Oh, maybe they mean "admissions criteria" will stay the same, in the sense of the bare minimum eligibility? Like Algebra 1 in 8th for Blair or 1 year of foreign language in middle school for RMIB?

Yes, meeting bare minimum eligibility will get you into the proposed fake SMCS and IB.

Many kids would be eligible and capable, well above the minimum, who didn't get accepted due to space or transportation, or other issues, and they choose not to attend. The big issue is the limited offerings at many schools. So, this is inequity at its finest.

But isn't the fact that there are many eligible and capable students but who don't get accepted due to space or who can't go due to transportation why we need more seats? Isn't this the issue this plan is attempting to solve?

There should also be more classes at each school because in the end most kids want or need to stay at their own schools.

Increasing seats in program and making sure home schools have advanced courses seems like a good plan.

No, it's not a plan as they are not adding classes to those schools without the classes. If anything, classes will be removed when they lose students due to redistricting, as they lose staff. The schools with advanced classes will be fine. The schools without it will be the problem, as what will happen to those students who cannot get into a magnet or go due to transportation?

You keep posting to make sure the home schools have more advanced classes but that will not happen without more funding and staff.

Yes I see what you mean. MCPS does need to address this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

I think the current MCPS teachers can teach at a performing arts magnet.

What will that magnet program look like? Right now their plan is to define it each year as they go along. When the 9th graders start the first year of the program, nobody will know what the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th years will look like. What will be taught during those years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Oh, maybe they mean "admissions criteria" will stay the same, in the sense of the bare minimum eligibility? Like Algebra 1 in 8th for Blair or 1 year of foreign language in middle school for RMIB?

Yes, meeting bare minimum eligibility will get you into the proposed fake SMCS and IB.

Many kids would be eligible and capable, well above the minimum, who didn't get accepted due to space or transportation, or other issues, and they choose not to attend. The big issue is the limited offerings at many schools. So, this is inequity at its finest.

But isn't the fact that there are many eligible and capable students but who don't get accepted due to space or who can't go due to transportation why we need more seats? Isn't this the issue this plan is attempting to solve?

There should also be more classes at each school because in the end most kids want or need to stay at their own schools.

Increasing seats in program and making sure home schools have advanced courses seems like a good plan.

No, it's not a plan as they are not adding classes to those schools without the classes. If anything, classes will be removed when they lose students due to redistricting, as they lose staff. The schools with advanced classes will be fine. The schools without it will be the problem, as what will happen to those students who cannot get into a magnet or go due to transportation?

You keep posting to make sure the home schools have more advanced classes but that will not happen without more funding and staff.

Yes I see what you mean. MCPS does need to address this

Everything they have said indicates they have absolutely no intention of addressing this or even of admitting it is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will the students who are dropped off at their local high school have another bus to take them the last mile(s) home? Or are they stuck at the high school with no further transportation?

No, they timing will not line up so you need to get them there to/from.

So how exactly is that supposed to work? Will the regional programs be like Whitman Social Justice program where only kids from that host high school attend because working parents whose kids don’t live walking distance can’t do daily drop off and pick up.

It's not just working parents who cannot transport. It means kids need to be in walking distance from their home school, parents drive or uber or kids drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

They don't offer a variety now. So, its going to get worse, not better.

WJ is going to lose a lot of staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

I think the current MCPS teachers can teach at a performing arts magnet.

Can they, yes, but many cannot even offer things like music theory as they don't have enough staff. To add a magnet means more classes, which means more teachers. There are no teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

I think the current MCPS teachers can teach at a performing arts magnet.

Can they, yes, but many cannot even offer things like music theory as they don't have enough staff. To add a magnet means more classes, which means more teachers. There are no teachers.

I think PP is just an ignorant prick who doesn't think teaching performing arts requires any specialized expertise. Maybe a laid off federal worker can do it s/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

I think the current MCPS teachers can teach at a performing arts magnet.

Can they, yes, but many cannot even offer things like music theory as they don't have enough staff. To add a magnet means more classes, which means more teachers. There are no teachers.

I think PP is just an ignorant prick who doesn't think teaching performing arts requires any specialized expertise. Maybe a laid off federal worker can do it s/

No I just think very highly of the music teachers at my kid's school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

I think the current MCPS teachers can teach at a performing arts magnet.

Can they, yes, but many cannot even offer things like music theory as they don't have enough staff. To add a magnet means more classes, which means more teachers. There are no teachers.

I think PP is just an ignorant prick who doesn't think teaching performing arts requires any specialized expertise. Maybe a laid off federal worker can do it s/

No I just think very highly of the music teachers at my kid's school

And you don't think they currently have enough work to do?