New presentation & FAQ up for program analysis

[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?

[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.

It doesn't matter if a student is in a program or not. The teacher allocation is going to correspond to the number of students. The principal is responsible for using their staffing allocation to cover the programs at their school.

[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.

It doesn't matter if a student is in a program or not. The teacher allocation is going to correspond to the number of students. The principal is responsible for using their staffing allocation to cover the programs at their school.

The programs are being imposed on principals without their input (or knowledge, apparently, given they are attending community engagement sessions to get the scoop) so that's going to go super well

[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.

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?

They do. But staffing is proportional to the number or students. Adding a magnet isn't going to add students to MCPS.

But you mean that teaching a magnet class is a different task and that teachers need to be compensated for this time? That makes sense.

I am wondering if there is any chance this plan has some hope of success especially since it seems like it is happening.

[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.

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?

They do. But staffing is proportional to the number or students. Adding a magnet isn't going to add students to MCPS.

But you mean that teaching a magnet class is a different task and that teachers need to be compensated for this time? That makes sense.

I am wondering if there is any chance this plan has some hope of success especially since it seems like it is happening.

You don't think teaching new specialized courses takes additional time? Do you work in CO?

[Anonymous]

Also what happens to the regular non magnet courses they teach?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

They do. But staffing is proportional to the number or students. Adding a magnet isn't going to add students to MCPS.

But you mean that teaching a magnet class is a different task and that teachers need to be compensated for this time? That makes sense.

I am wondering if there is any chance this plan has some hope of success especially since it seems like it is happening.

You don't think teaching new specialized courses takes additional time? Do you work in CO?

No you are right. This is awful.

[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.

For the latter, no. They have zero budget for new employees, only a couple thousand dollars per region per year for teacher training, and those teachers will magically know how to code a deep neural network, or run Adriano machines.

If a kid can learn the content in 1/8 th of a year, an adult probably can also.

[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.

For the latter, no. They have zero budget for new employees, only a couple thousand dollars per region per year for teacher training, and those teachers will magically know how to code a deep neural network, or run Adriano machines.

If a kid can learn the content in 1/8 th of a year, an adult probably can also.

1/8 of a school year is equivalent to a bit over one month full-time involvement. Yeah, a teacher can totally learn a brand new course curriculum (some with operating wet labs, soldering, etc) within one week and can teach the course immediately. Why not pay a student intern to do this? I bet they can do better and won’t complain about extra workload.

[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.

For the latter, no. They have zero budget for new employees, only a couple thousand dollars per region per year for teacher training, and those teachers will magically know how to code a deep neural network, or run Adriano machines.

If a kid can learn the content in 1/8 th of a year, an adult probably can also.

And this fly by night operation is what MCPS considers a good substitute for Blair SMCS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So other schools are supposed to remain overcrowded and boundaries never change so WJ and Einstein can maintain current staffing levels?