[Live stream] County Council Education Working Session

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

2 years are not enough to staffing 27 brand new programs even for just the 9th grade. And how to persuade students to become the lab rats given only one grade of teachers? And in another year, they got to double the number of teachers.

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

I will look at 6 schools and one grade only. How many teachers are already in the school who can teach those subjects. How many needs to be brought from outside.


Only the bold part is issue and MCPS needs to provide data for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The defensiveness from Jeannie and Essie to councilmembers is unreal here! You can tell they're angry that they're being held accountable.

It’s like-“what-you didn’t actually expect us to do our jobs and be prepared to answer questions, did you?”

Hire me at the Central office one day -doesn’t seem like they get much done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

2 years are not enough to staffing 27 brand new programs even for just the 9th grade. And how to persuade students to become the lab rats given only one grade of teachers? And in another year, they got to double the number of teachers.

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

I will look at 6 schools and one grade only. How many teachers are already in the school who can teach those subjects. How many needs to be brought from outside.


Only the bold part is issue and MCPS needs to provide data for that.

MCPS has entered the chat...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not realistic to implement so many big changes (6 regions, each with 6 core programs; 2 new high schools are up and running; running the grandfathered programs concurrently with the regional programs) in such a short time frame (they want to start signing students up NEXT FALL), given MCPS is still collecting data, does not have a staff or cost analysis, stakeholders have not been adequately engaged, and given the fiscal picture (the economy is shaky and our county is dependent on federal workers who are facing job loss). It is improbable that a fully fleshed out plan will be ready in December for BOE approval.

This enormous change is going to cost a lot of $$$$$$$ that the county does not have, if equity is the priority. Field trips need to be equitably executed. Admissions to the programs needs to be transparent. Specialty teaching positions are already difficult to staff as it is, not to mention multiplying this by six new regions, and the devil is in the details--planning and logistics. It is not probable that all programs in all six regions will be fully staffed and ready to go in 2027 in an equitable manner.

Cluster assignments should have a robust amount of community engagement. The region assignments seem very random and unfair. MCPS only held focus groups for students from Damascus, Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, Blake, Kennedy, Springbrook, and Richard Montgomery, which explains a lot. What about opinions from students from the 18 other high schools? And how were these students selected?

Moreover, the regional model is unlikely to improve the schools, such as Kennedy HS, which is 60% under capacity, that need the most help.

Jawando confirmed that all of the variables listed above need BOE approval.

I don't know where that figure came from. Kennedy is currently 14% under capacity according to the latest CIP. 1880 students, 2173 capacity, which puts it at 86% full, right inside the desired window.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP26_Chapter4DCC.pdf

It came from councilmember Fani-Gonzales, who lives nearby. Watch the video.

Council member was talking non-sense. It not 60% under capacity.

Her point remains, that it’s under capacity. The solution needs to address the schools most in need.

I don't get what point she was trying to make to be honest by 60% under capacity. It;s not 60% to begin with.

Do you think that 85% occupied school is an issue? Filling it more will make it a non-issue? if yes, then that's happening with boudary changes and families, including council member, should be happy.



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

2 years are not enough to staffing 27 brand new programs even for just the 9th grade. And how to persuade students to become the lab rats given only one grade of teachers? And in another year, they got to double the number of teachers.

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

I will look at 6 schools and one grade only. How many teachers are already in the school who can teach those subjects. How many needs to be brought from outside.


Only the bold part is issue and MCPS needs to provide data for that.

MCPS has entered the chat...

Nah, I am 9th grader in RM cluster and second one in 5th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

2 years are not enough to staffing 27 brand new programs even for just the 9th grade. And how to persuade students to become the lab rats given only one grade of teachers? And in another year, they got to double the number of teachers.

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

I will look at 6 schools and one grade only. How many teachers are already in the school who can teach those subjects. How many needs to be brought from outside.


Only the bold part is issue and MCPS needs to provide data for that.

MCPS has entered the chat...

Nah, I am 9th grader in RM cluster and second one in 5th grade.

Sorry, I meant one in 9th grade and one in 5th grade in RM cluster. It's best to try to argue the points and not poster. Arguing about poster helps no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not realistic to implement so many big changes (6 regions, each with 6 core programs; 2 new high schools are up and running; running the grandfathered programs concurrently with the regional programs) in such a short time frame (they want to start signing students up NEXT FALL), given MCPS is still collecting data, does not have a staff or cost analysis, stakeholders have not been adequately engaged, and given the fiscal picture (the economy is shaky and our county is dependent on federal workers who are facing job loss). It is improbable that a fully fleshed out plan will be ready in December for BOE approval.

This enormous change is going to cost a lot of $$$$$$$ that the county does not have, if equity is the priority. Field trips need to be equitably executed. Admissions to the programs needs to be transparent. Specialty teaching positions are already difficult to staff as it is, not to mention multiplying this by six new regions, and the devil is in the details--planning and logistics. It is not probable that all programs in all six regions will be fully staffed and ready to go in 2027 in an equitable manner.

Cluster assignments should have a robust amount of community engagement. The region assignments seem very random and unfair. MCPS only held focus groups for students from Damascus, Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, Blake, Kennedy, Springbrook, and Richard Montgomery, which explains a lot. What about opinions from students from the 18 other high schools? And how were these students selected?

Moreover, the regional model is unlikely to improve the schools, such as Kennedy HS, which is 60% under capacity, that need the most help.

Jawando confirmed that all of the variables listed above need BOE approval.

I don't know where that figure came from. Kennedy is currently 14% under capacity according to the latest CIP. 1880 students, 2173 capacity, which puts it at 86% full, right inside the desired window.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP26_Chapter4DCC.pdf

It came from councilmember Fani-Gonzales, who lives nearby. Watch the video.

Council member was talking non-sense. It not 60% under capacity.

Her point remains, that it’s under capacity. The solution needs to address the schools most in need.

I don't get what point she was trying to make to be honest by 60% under capacity. It;s not 60% to begin with.

Do you think that 85% occupied school is an issue? Filling it more will make it a non-issue? if yes, then that's happening with boudary changes and families, including council member, should be happy.



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

The IB program at Kennedy is running at 50-60% of capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not realistic to implement so many big changes (6 regions, each with 6 core programs; 2 new high schools are up and running; running the grandfathered programs concurrently with the regional programs) in such a short time frame (they want to start signing students up NEXT FALL), given MCPS is still collecting data, does not have a staff or cost analysis, stakeholders have not been adequately engaged, and given the fiscal picture (the economy is shaky and our county is dependent on federal workers who are facing job loss). It is improbable that a fully fleshed out plan will be ready in December for BOE approval.

This enormous change is going to cost a lot of $$$$$$$ that the county does not have, if equity is the priority. Field trips need to be equitably executed. Admissions to the programs needs to be transparent. Specialty teaching positions are already difficult to staff as it is, not to mention multiplying this by six new regions, and the devil is in the details--planning and logistics. It is not probable that all programs in all six regions will be fully staffed and ready to go in 2027 in an equitable manner.

Cluster assignments should have a robust amount of community engagement. The region assignments seem very random and unfair. MCPS only held focus groups for students from Damascus, Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, Blake, Kennedy, Springbrook, and Richard Montgomery, which explains a lot. What about opinions from students from the 18 other high schools? And how were these students selected?

Moreover, the regional model is unlikely to improve the schools, such as Kennedy HS, which is 60% under capacity, that need the most help.

Jawando confirmed that all of the variables listed above need BOE approval.

I don't know where that figure came from. Kennedy is currently 14% under capacity according to the latest CIP. 1880 students, 2173 capacity, which puts it at 86% full, right inside the desired window.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP26_Chapter4DCC.pdf

It came from councilmember Fani-Gonzales, who lives nearby. Watch the video.

Council member was talking non-sense. It not 60% under capacity.

Her point remains, that it’s under capacity. The solution needs to address the schools most in need.

All of the new boundary options put Kennedy at greater than 100% capacity.

Most familes do not want Kennedy, so don't worry, it will not go to capacity as families will move or go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

Understand the fiscal constraints, lack of comprehensive staff, budget, and staff analysis; lack of adequate public buy in and even public awareness, equitable distribution of clusters into regions with a robust amount if public engagement, transparency of the programs analysis, trying to implement enormous changes concurrently with rolling out 2 new high schools and managing the grandfathered programs, uncomprehensive selection of high schools for student focus groups; the plan will not solve the problem of the under utilized schools, the plan will weaken the currently successful magnets, the list goes on. Extending the timeline to at least a year is clearly needed. As it is, this “plan” is half baked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

Understand the fiscal constraints, lack of comprehensive staff, budget, and staff analysis; lack of adequate public buy in and even public awareness, equitable distribution of clusters into regions with a robust amount if public engagement, transparency of the programs analysis, trying to implement enormous changes concurrently with rolling out 2 new high schools and managing the grandfathered programs, uncomprehensive selection of high schools for student focus groups; the plan will not solve the problem of the under utilized schools, the plan will weaken the currently successful magnets, the list goes on. Extending the timeline to at least a year is clearly needed. As it is, this “plan” is half baked.

Yes, it will be hard for 3 years when overlap exists. but that will be the case no matter when we start.

Budget stuff - I have no idea about it so no comments

But there will be cost of not doing it with boudary change. We should be able to see capacity of all programs to get an idea and ideal will be to do it together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

2 years are not enough to staffing 27 brand new programs even for just the 9th grade. And how to persuade students to become the lab rats given only one grade of teachers? And in another year, they got to double the number of teachers.

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

I will look at 6 schools and one grade only. How many teachers are already in the school who can teach those subjects. How many needs to be brought from outside.


Only the bold part is issue and MCPS needs to provide data for that.

It’s not six schools. It’s all the schools. There will be 14 application programs in EACH REGION. Schools will have three or more programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not realistic to implement so many big changes (6 regions, each with 6 core programs; 2 new high schools are up and running; running the grandfathered programs concurrently with the regional programs) in such a short time frame (they want to start signing students up NEXT FALL), given MCPS is still collecting data, does not have a staff or cost analysis, stakeholders have not been adequately engaged, and given the fiscal picture (the economy is shaky and our county is dependent on federal workers who are facing job loss). It is improbable that a fully fleshed out plan will be ready in December for BOE approval.

This enormous change is going to cost a lot of $$$$$$$ that the county does not have, if equity is the priority. Field trips need to be equitably executed. Admissions to the programs needs to be transparent. Specialty teaching positions are already difficult to staff as it is, not to mention multiplying this by six new regions, and the devil is in the details--planning and logistics. It is not probable that all programs in all six regions will be fully staffed and ready to go in 2027 in an equitable manner.

Cluster assignments should have a robust amount of community engagement. The region assignments seem very random and unfair. MCPS only held focus groups for students from Damascus, Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, Blake, Kennedy, Springbrook, and Richard Montgomery, which explains a lot. What about opinions from students from the 18 other high schools? And how were these students selected?

Moreover, the regional model is unlikely to improve the schools, such as Kennedy HS, which is 60% under capacity, that need the most help.

Jawando confirmed that all of the variables listed above need BOE approval.

I don't know where that figure came from. Kennedy is currently 14% under capacity according to the latest CIP. 1880 students, 2173 capacity, which puts it at 86% full, right inside the desired window.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP26_Chapter4DCC.pdf

It came from councilmember Fani-Gonzales, who lives nearby. Watch the video.

Council member was talking non-sense. It not 60% under capacity.

Her point remains, that it’s under capacity. The solution needs to address the schools most in need.

I don't get what point she was trying to make to be honest by 60% under capacity. It;s not 60% to begin with.

Do you think that 85% occupied school is an issue? Filling it more will make it a non-issue? if yes, then that's happening with boudary changes and families, including council member, should be happy.



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

The IB program at Kennedy is running at 50-60% of capacity.

Thank you. Now I get the context of council member comments.

Based on simply reading comments in forum( I am not from Kennedy cluster) I think reputation of Kennedy is poor one and most good students try to leave Kenneddy to join other schools in DCC. That may have resulted in not having enough motivated kids in school. I am just speculating here. Some one from the school can chime in.

If I was making a decision and if my analysis is correct, I will put STEM program in Kenneddy to lift the reputation. Case in point Blair - It did not magically become a better school. It was all about magnet there. Now Blair has a better reputation and perhaps does not need magnets to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

Understand the fiscal constraints, lack of comprehensive staff, budget, and staff analysis; lack of adequate public buy in and even public awareness, equitable distribution of clusters into regions with a robust amount if public engagement, transparency of the programs analysis, trying to implement enormous changes concurrently with rolling out 2 new high schools and managing the grandfathered programs, uncomprehensive selection of high schools for student focus groups; the plan will not solve the problem of the under utilized schools, the plan will weaken the currently successful magnets, the list goes on. Extending the timeline to at least a year is clearly needed. As it is, this “plan” is half baked.

Yes, it will be hard for 3 years when overlap exists. but that will be the case no matter when we start.

Budget stuff - I have no idea about it so no comments

But there will be cost of not doing it with boudary change. We should be able to see capacity of all programs to get an idea and ideal will be to do it together.

Budget stuff: already the council gives half of its budget to MCPS. This proposal will require a great deal more than half of its budget—money that the council is not likely to have.

The main point is it is irresponsible to pass a half-baked enormous proposal that will impact every cluster. A linger timeline is needed for proper analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

2 years are not enough to staffing 27 brand new programs even for just the 9th grade. And how to persuade students to become the lab rats given only one grade of teachers? And in another year, they got to double the number of teachers.

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

I will look at 6 schools and one grade only. How many teachers are already in the school who can teach those subjects. How many needs to be brought from outside.


Only the bold part is issue and MCPS needs to provide data for that.

It’s not six schools. It’s all the schools. There will be 14 application programs in EACH REGION. Schools will have three or more programs.

Thanks for catching that. It won't be 6 schools. My mistake.

Core question is still the same, what course will need new hiring and what can be taught by existing resourses. MCPS needs to share that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

2 years is plety of time to roll out for one grade in 6 schools. Not sure the issue. Can you elaborate?

Understand the fiscal constraints, lack of comprehensive staff, budget, and staff analysis; lack of adequate public buy in and even public awareness, equitable distribution of clusters into regions with a robust amount if public engagement, transparency of the programs analysis, trying to implement enormous changes concurrently with rolling out 2 new high schools and managing the grandfathered programs, uncomprehensive selection of high schools for student focus groups; the plan will not solve the problem of the under utilized schools, the plan will weaken the currently successful magnets, the list goes on. Extending the timeline to at least a year is clearly needed. As it is, this “plan” is half baked.

Yes, it will be hard for 3 years when overlap exists. but that will be the case no matter when we start.

Budget stuff - I have no idea about it so no comments

But there will be cost of not doing it with boudary change. We should be able to see capacity of all programs to get an idea and ideal will be to do it together.

Budget stuff: already the council gives half of its budget to MCPS. This proposal will require a great deal more than half of its budget—money that the council is not likely to have.

The main point is it is irresponsible to pass a half-baked enormous proposal that will impact every cluster. A linger timeline is needed for proper analysis.

Yes, I would like that see that number from MCPS.