Recap of last night (Nov. 13) in-person meeting at Churchill for academic program & boundary analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

My 2nd favorite was with a different person from Program Analysis (regional model) team - I mentioned that they are asking current 7th grade families to commit blind to these programs since they will be building them out year-over-year, only one year at a time. The answer was we will have a plan. Left unsaid was anything about actual implementation - like getting programs staffed with teachers, never mind getting teachers who can actually teach the program content.

The year-by-year thing their party line and they're wedded to it.

I was recently in at a meeting with parents and Taylor and he talked about that approach. I said, "As a parent, I wouldn't put my kid in a program that wasn't complete." He snapped, "Then don't put you kid in it."

All I could thin was, No, problem, my dude. My kids and I are happy to steer clear of your half baked plans.

Think, not thin. Tired fingers, many typos. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

My 2nd favorite was with a different person from Program Analysis (regional model) team - I mentioned that they are asking current 7th grade families to commit blind to these programs since they will be building them out year-over-year, only one year at a time. The answer was we will have a plan. Left unsaid was anything about actual implementation - like getting programs staffed with teachers, never mind getting teachers who can actually teach the program content.

The year-by-year thing their party line and they're wedded to it.

I was recently in at a meeting with parents and Taylor and he talked about that approach. I said, "As a parent, I wouldn't put my kid in a program that wasn't complete." He snapped, "Then don't put you kid in it."

All I could thin was, No, problem, my dude. My kids and I are happy to steer clear of your half baked plans.

Wow! What an absolute jerk! Hopefully more people in MoCo are now realizing how much of a nice guy act he's been putting for so long now....

[Anonymous]

One more: circumstantial evidence.

I wanted to talk to FLO about boundary study, but they were not present. I was told that these community engagement sessions were not part of the original plan, so FLO is not required to attending these specific sessions.

I did feel sorry for the Boundary Study people (Mamoon, Malchodi), because it appeared that they were forced to trot out there to give the appearance of the boundary study being connected with the proposed regional model.

She did say that FLO will be at future sessions, that the boundary study feedback sessions will happen another round. Those had been scheduled and planned for. Not these last-minute regional model meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

My 2nd favorite was with a different person from Program Analysis (regional model) team - I mentioned that they are asking current 7th grade families to commit blind to these programs since they will be building them out year-over-year, only one year at a time. The answer was we will have a plan. Left unsaid was anything about actual implementation - like getting programs staffed with teachers, never mind getting teachers who can actually teach the program content.

The year-by-year thing their party line and they're wedded to it.

I was recently in at a meeting with parents and Taylor and he talked about that approach. I said, "As a parent, I wouldn't put my kid in a program that wasn't complete." He snapped, "Then don't put you kid in it."

All I could thin was, No, problem, my dude. My kids and I are happy to steer clear of your half baked plans.

This. It's possible that some portion of the highest-performing students (ie, the proficient ones on the MSDE report card) opt out of MCPS.

Our HS does offer AP Calculus, but the teachers don't actually know what they're teaching. Still beyond me how MCPS will hire specialized teachers to handle the regional programs, whether new SMCS or CTE programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

My 2nd favorite was with a different person from Program Analysis (regional model) team - I mentioned that they are asking current 7th grade families to commit blind to these programs since they will be building them out year-over-year, only one year at a time. The answer was we will have a plan. Left unsaid was anything about actual implementation - like getting programs staffed with teachers, never mind getting teachers who can actually teach the program content.

The year-by-year thing their party line and they're wedded to it.

I was recently in at a meeting with parents and Taylor and he talked about that approach. I said, "As a parent, I wouldn't put my kid in a program that wasn't complete." He snapped, "Then don't put you kid in it."

All I could thin was, No, problem, my dude. My kids and I are happy to steer clear of your half baked plans.

Wow! What an absolute jerk! Hopefully more people in MoCo are now realizing how much of a nice guy act he's been putting for so long now....

+1 the picture emerging of Thomas Taylor is not pretty, sounds like an ahole who is digging himself deeper and deeper. His legacy won't be pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sent a letter to the BOE earlier this week as a concerned parent asking about the transportation plans and urging board members to get a clear answer on planning and cost before approving the regional plan. I pointed out the likelihood that if transportation were only provided between high schools, participation in the regional programs in the NEC and DCC would likely drop, since families now rely on the neighborhood stops. I'm happy to hear they are reconsidering the plan and at least discussing neighborhood bus stops. But it's still mind-boggling that they are trying to rush this through without taking the time to really analyze and design a plan.

+1

I think this is only really worth doing with DCC/NEC style transportation. The HS-HS proposal would be so inequitable, so I guess it's good they're rethinking. But having DCC/NEC style busing all over the county for this many programs has to be extremely expensive. I think a better solution would be to scale WAY down the number of new programs but slowing add them in targeted places, and dissolve the DCC/NEC.

DCC/NEC style transportation is ridiculous and expensive. The better solution would be to switch the HS start times then you can run pickup from the MS or ES which tend to be closer to kids.

Meaning that HS would start after ES?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

This is maddening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

This is maddening.

+1 PP presented a very clear logical argument, but that’s no match for the religious dogma of “inextricably linked.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

This is maddening.

I have yet to understand why they linked the boundary study and program analysis. Does anyone know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

This is maddening.

I have yet to understand why they linked the boundary study and program analysis. Does anyone know?

To make sure the six-region model goes through. Boundaries must be updated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

This is maddening.

I have yet to understand why they linked the boundary study and program analysis. Does anyone know?

So Thomas Taylor use the fact that revamped everything in MCPS to get a better job before he has to deal with the disaster he’s creating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sent a letter to the BOE earlier this week as a concerned parent asking about the transportation plans and urging board members to get a clear answer on planning and cost before approving the regional plan. I pointed out the likelihood that if transportation were only provided between high schools, participation in the regional programs in the NEC and DCC would likely drop, since families now rely on the neighborhood stops. I'm happy to hear they are reconsidering the plan and at least discussing neighborhood bus stops. But it's still mind-boggling that they are trying to rush this through without taking the time to really analyze and design a plan.

+1

I think this is only really worth doing with DCC/NEC style transportation. The HS-HS proposal would be so inequitable, so I guess it's good they're rethinking. But having DCC/NEC style busing all over the county for this many programs has to be extremely expensive. I think a better solution would be to scale WAY down the number of new programs but slowing add them in targeted places, and dissolve the DCC/NEC.

DCC/NEC style transportation is ridiculous and expensive. The better solution would be to switch the HS start times then you can run pickup from the MS or ES which tend to be closer to kids.

This makes no sense and would be an issue with sports after school as field time is limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite was Essie McGuire - when asked about the continued necessity of the regional model being linked with the boundary study since there is declining enrollment, I got the impression that she was making it up on the spot. Even said that because there is declining enrollment, this is even more reason to keep the regional model going with the boundary study.

I was thinking that with declining enrollment, the spaces in the schools will open up, so there is no longer the urgent need to force the regional model prematurely. AKA the regional model can be separated from the boundary study.

Total nonsense (Essie) — and agree with you. With the new enrollment numbers, I don’t think it’s difficult to have no high school >90% utilization, leaving plenty of room for whichever programs turn out to be more popular than others, which isn’t something that can be known ahead of time anyway.

I also pushed on this, saying how slides from October about transportation estimated a similar number of students leaving each high school even though the high schools are different sizes and have historically had different percentages of students opt to leave their home school for different programs. They agreed that they do not know how many students from each school will leave for a program. They said they will grow and shrink programs based on demand. So I mentioned how, if they have no sense of numbers anyway and haven't done any meaningful research to get estimates, then there is no reason the boundary study and program analysis need to be linked- they can just make sure to leave room in all schools for future programs. Their response "the boundary study and program analysis are inextricably linked."

This is maddening.

I have yet to understand why they linked the boundary study and program analysis. Does anyone know?

To make sure the six-region model goes through. Boundaries must be updated.

Why? As the enrollment is projected to decrease, as long as the selected boundary change option make sure every HS is underutilized, the new special programs won’t worsen the situation.