Will 6 Region Model Pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Also Essie McGuire told the County Council that they thought that transportation costs would actually go down after the transition to the regional model is complete. There's no way that could possibly be true if they actually do robust, convenient bus service to the regional programs-- that's gotta mean they'll do the bare minimum (HS to HS) no matter how inconvenient and inequitable it is.

If its HS to HS kids have to be able to walk or parents drive as there will not be enough time to take the bus to the home school then the other school and get there by the bell. Why not give actuall numbers?

LOL actual numbers.

MCPS doesn’t do numbers, they do cute marketing slogans like “access and abundance!”

You’re supposed to be snowed by that, not to ask for data or budget numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Right I'm saying MCPS should focus on getting folks like your kids to school and let those who can do so easily take public transit.

Because MCPS hasn’t done a transportation analysis. Essie McGuire acknowledged that in the council meeting and was asked to provide one in the December update. How realistic that would be? I highly doubt the quality

No transportation analysis, no cost estimates, no input from students and parents, no collaboration with schools. Cutting good programs, and replacing them with new stuff no one wants, all so the new sup looks like a genius.

Thomas Taylor is the Elon Musk of MCPS, and BoE is the GOP runner stamping every stupid idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Right I'm saying MCPS should focus on getting folks like your kids to school and let those who can do so easily take public transit.

Because MCPS hasn’t done a transportation analysis. Essie McGuire acknowledged that in the council meeting and was asked to provide one in the December update. How realistic that would be? I highly doubt the quality

No transportation analysis, no cost estimates, no input from students and parents, no collaboration with schools. Cutting good programs, and replacing them with new stuff no one wants, all so the new sup looks like a genius.

Thomas Taylor is the Elon Musk of MCPS, and BoE is the GOP runner stamping every stupid idea.

MCPS excels at incurring costs and then shaking down taxpayers for the money to pay for things they should have budgeted better for in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Right I'm saying MCPS should focus on getting folks like your kids to school and let those who can do so easily take public transit.

Because MCPS hasn’t done a transportation analysis. Essie McGuire acknowledged that in the council meeting and was asked to provide one in the December update. How realistic that would be? I highly doubt the quality

No transportation analysis, no cost estimates, no input from students and parents, no collaboration with schools. Cutting good programs, and replacing them with new stuff no one wants, all so the new sup looks like a genius.

Thomas Taylor is the Elon Musk of MCPS, and BoE is the GOP runner stamping every stupid idea.

That is a very apt analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Right I'm saying MCPS should focus on getting folks like your kids to school and let those who can do so easily take public transit.

Because MCPS hasn’t done a transportation analysis. Essie McGuire acknowledged that in the council meeting and was asked to provide one in the December update. How realistic that would be? I highly doubt the quality

No transportation analysis, no cost estimates, no input from students and parents, no collaboration with schools. Cutting good programs, and replacing them with new stuff no one wants, all so the new sup looks like a genius.

Thomas Taylor is the Elon Musk of MCPS, and BoE is the GOP runner stamping every stupid idea.

Good summary. Obviously the BOE are ok with it or behind it as they could stop this at any time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Right I'm saying MCPS should focus on getting folks like your kids to school and let those who can do so easily take public transit.

They aren't worried about it. We've never had bus service. Like the other poster we are just with the walk zone so we drive. Otherwise, its walking residential roads without sidewalks or stop signs on every block and crossing several major roads including ones that multiple people died at tragically. Or, the expectation is when kids are older they drive but they don't offer parking.

[Anonymous]

Do they think they have parent buy-in?

[Anonymous]

On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

+1

They have basically said they are ending the DCC and NEC and countywide magnets and putting :something: in their place so this certainly isn't just an "analysis" (I WISH someone at MCPS knew how to do an analysis) but they can never say what they are actually doing. This is why parents get angry MCPS CO - you are not honest people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

+1

They have basically said they are ending the DCC and NEC and countywide magnets and putting :something: in their place so this certainly isn't just an "analysis" (I WISH someone at MCPS knew how to do an analysis) but they can never say what they are actually doing. This is why parents get angry MCPS CO - you are not honest people.

I think they are saying what they are actually doing--the six region model with the common-themed programs in each region. But they haven't explained how they will be able to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

+1

They have basically said they are ending the DCC and NEC and countywide magnets and putting :something: in their place so this certainly isn't just an "analysis" (I WISH someone at MCPS knew how to do an analysis) but they can never say what they are actually doing. This is why parents get angry MCPS CO - you are not honest people.

I think they are saying what they are actually doing--the six region model with the common-themed programs in each region. But they haven't explained how they will be able to do it.

terribly, like every other recent program they tried to implement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

+1

They have basically said they are ending the DCC and NEC and countywide magnets and putting :something: in their place so this certainly isn't just an "analysis" (I WISH someone at MCPS knew how to do an analysis) but they can never say what they are actually doing. This is why parents get angry MCPS CO - you are not honest people.

I think they are saying what they are actually doing--the six region model with the common-themed programs in each region. But they haven't explained how they will be able to do it.

We don't actually know what any of the programs will look like or where they will be yet. They have made initial half baked proposals for how to distribute the programs but I sense they are revising that based on how horrifically terrible their choices were.

[Anonymous]

For example, will teachers from the countywide programs get poached to other schools? What will the programs that are left look like? Who will attend programs outside their home school? Only the kids with cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, you know that BOE has a culture of being a rubber stamp, right? So if MCPS recommends it, BOE generally approves it.

Then they'll cry to County Council who just ponies up $. Then taxpayers lose and every other service and dept in MoCo loses as their $ gets taken by MCPS.

Besides, I don't think BOE is voting on the 6 Region Model. BOE will vote on boundary study next spring.

This. We've been in MCPS for a while, and this seems to be a pattern. Frustrating for parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On this, I think parent buy-in is irrelevant to MCPS. By the looks of it, MCPS is going to steamroll over everyone to get this done.

And I'm realizing the terminology itself is confusing. MCPS calls it "Program Analysis" while everyone else seems to be calling it "6 Region Model" or similar.

MCPS rarely cares what parents think. Heck, they don't even want to do what's in the best interest of students. Not entirely sure what motivates MCPS leadership (the idea of perceived 'Equity' maybe?) but it certainly isn't efficiency or common sense.