MCPS planning very limited regional program transportation (HS pickups only)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

That is not accurate-- please don't email with inaccurate information or you will not have credibility. The budget increase for the regional programs for this coming year is only a couple million dollars, not $10M. (It will very likely swell way past that when they actually implement it, but it is not yet.)

My bad. Just went on checking the actual numbers. Could you kindly cross-check with me?
I'm looking at the executive summary table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G_ub9T6wW2tXU0yCtfWjQqM4ij5e_TxOrclMvoOPzs/edit?gid=252197658#gid=252197658

Looks to me that Item #56 and #57 are direct personnel hires related to the planning of regional programs:
56 Special Education Behavioral Support 6.0000 1,001,166 4 Additional Cross Functional Team positions for behavioral support - 1/Region
57 Regional Programs Support 10.0000 922,815 3 & 9 School based personnel to plan for and support regional program model

So a total of 16 full-time FTE with $2 million cost next year for planning. Is this a correct estimation? I'm now trying to dig out the operating budget estimation that Taylor presented in one of the recent BOE meetings (maybe November?), where his estimated total cost of all regional programs is ~ $10 million/year (including transportation). Planning takes $2 million, and looks like these job functions need to stay in the future. Already 20% of the total cost, and we haven't started to hire a single teacher or bus driver yet.

The special ed stuff has nothing to do with the HS regional programs-- it just says "region" because Taylor wants to start using these 6 regions to divide up a lot of other things geographically too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

Transportation to those existing programs are hard for many families to make work too, and lots of families opt out because of it-- they do not guarantee that all families have a walkable bus stop, and that's really inequitable.

But it's just extra infuriating that they claimed that all the costs and disruption of this model are worth it because it will make transportation more equitable and accessible, but then they're actually going in the opposite direction. (Right now, there's usually at least magnet bus stops at elementary and middle schools in the area too, so a larger chunk of families do have walkable bus stops. Cutting it back to just high schools is a big loss.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

Transportation to those existing programs are hard for many families to make work too, and lots of families opt out because of it-- they do not guarantee that all families have a walkable bus stop, and that's really inequitable.

But it's just extra infuriating that they claimed that all the costs and disruption of this model are worth it because it will make transportation more equitable and accessible, but then they're actually going in the opposite direction. (Right now, there's usually at least magnet bus stops at elementary and middle schools in the area too, so a larger chunk of families do have walkable bus stops. Cutting it back to just high schools is a big loss.)

+1 exactly

I don't understand why they don't care at all. Huge boondoggle. And they are committing MCPD to it before they have the money for it. Absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

Transportation to those existing programs are hard for many families to make work too, and lots of families opt out because of it-- they do not guarantee that all families have a walkable bus stop, and that's really inequitable.

But it's just extra infuriating that they claimed that all the costs and disruption of this model are worth it because it will make transportation more equitable and accessible, but then they're actually going in the opposite direction. (Right now, there's usually at least magnet bus stops at elementary and middle schools in the area too, so a larger chunk of families do have walkable bus stops. Cutting it back to just high schools is a big loss.)

+1 exactly

I don't understand why they don't care at all. Huge boondoggle. And they are committing MCPD to it before they have the money for it. Absurd.

sorry that should say committing MCPS to it

[Anonymous]

there are other glaring issues that indicate that this is not going to improve equity of access. Plus there is seemingly no plan to sunset the programs that will fail or show uneven outcomes across regions.

I predict that after the first full cohort goes through (so fall 2031), the competitive criteria programs will be disproportionately white and Asian compared to their regions. The CTE programs that aren't explicitly paired with a high level academic program (Certified medical assistant, early childhood) will be disproportionately Black and brown, the difference in outcomes between regions will be noticeable, and many of the programs will be quietly shuttered. I would like to be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Design team member here - another thing that came up is that the language pathway will only be Chinese. Not other less-taught languages. Is there a need/desire for Chinese across all six regions?

But if you thought the global language program pathway might give your child access to Italian or German or ASL or Arabic. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are other glaring issues that indicate that this is not going to improve equity of access. Plus there is seemingly no plan to sunset the programs that will fail or show uneven outcomes across regions.

I predict that after the first full cohort goes through (so fall 2031), the competitive criteria programs will be disproportionately white and Asian compared to their regions. The CTE programs that aren't explicitly paired with a high level academic program (Certified medical assistant, early childhood) will be disproportionately Black and brown, the difference in outcomes between regions will be noticeable, and many of the programs will be quietly shuttered. I would like to be wrong.

So, you mean nothing changes...the schools without stem are going to see a huge mass exit for those families whose kids want stem...nothing new but at least with the DCC kids had options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Design team member here - another thing that came up is that the language pathway will only be Chinese. Not other less-taught languages. Is there a need/desire for Chinese across all six regions?

But if you thought the global language program pathway might give your child access to Italian or German or ASL or Arabic. Nope.

I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Design team member here - another thing that came up is that the language pathway will only be Chinese. Not other less-taught languages. Is there a need/desire for Chinese across all six regions?

But if you thought the global language program pathway might give your child access to Italian or German or ASL or Arabic. Nope.

What?! Only one language across the county? They definitely gave the impression that students would be able to select from several languages not offered at most HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Design team member here - another thing that came up is that the language pathway will only be Chinese. Not other less-taught languages. Is there a need/desire for Chinese across all six regions?

But if you thought the global language program pathway might give your child access to Italian or German or ASL or Arabic. Nope.

What?! Only one language across the county? They definitely gave the impression that students would be able to select from several languages not offered at most HS.

I'm surprised that the didn't choose Spanish, tbh.

[Anonymous]

OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

This board has already identified the "intricate relationship" between them and MCPS. They are MCPS contractors and these two persons thought they represented the entire Black and Brown community, which this regional model is exactly hurting the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

I think the general concept itself is solid, it's just clearly going to be implemented in an rushed, messy, expensive, and inequitable way.

The Board of Ed is on board with the concept (I don't blame them), and Taylor is a smooth enough talker to convince them that all the implementation concerns are just "no plans will ever make everyone happy, there will be bumps along the way but we'll adjust and fine-tune" level-stuff, and also that this absolutely has to happen stating in fall 2027 and it's impossible to slow down a year to get it right.

Given all that, and the fact that none of them want to push back on him that often, they've decided it's good enough.

That said, while I think the chances of them voting it down are next to nothing, I do think they can have some influence on the details. So I think rather than saying "vote this down because the transportation plan is unfair and inequitable," it's a better plan to reach out to them and say "please insist that MCPS provide an equitable transportation plan for students-- even if it costs more, it's the right thing to do."