[Live stream] County Council Education Working Session

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie's point about WANTING the Boundary and Program models to line up is ideal, but in order to DO THAT, the investigative and planning work should have commenced MUCH sooner if that was the goal!

+1

I appreciated the Council members making clear how unrealistic they thought the timeline was.

It's an interesting dynamic with 2 of the BoE members running for Council - Yang and Silvestre? If they're not able to bring that kind of tough questioning -- and willingness to withhold approval -- I personally wouldn't vote to send them to County Council.

Yang brings receipts and asks the thought questions. Silvestre looks barely awake during BOE meetings. She only perks up when someone mentions dual enrollment so she can double dip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

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


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

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

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

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

And how many schools will lose teachers that move to these new programs, and how will MCPS replace them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

STEM will attract a lot more students. Also, IB needs outside cordination with rigid program structure. It may be harder to implement well in new place compared to STEM. Not excusing anything wrong in IB at Kenneddy, just thinking aloud here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

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


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

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

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

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

And how many schools will lose teachers that move to these new programs, and how will MCPS replace them.

Many kids will also move to these programs. So all teachers don't need to be replaced. That's why MCPS needs to share exact numbers for all these programs and what extra resourse they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

STEM will attract a lot more students. Also, IB needs outside cordination with rigid program structure. It may be harder to implement well in new place compared to STEM. Not excusing anything wrong in IB at Kenneddy, just thinking aloud here.

STEM magnet with strong teachers who can provide solid educational experience with a plethora of well-designed courses can attract strong students. STEM program with just providing MVC, AP stat and Physics C won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie's point about WANTING the Boundary and Program models to line up is ideal, but in order to DO THAT, the investigative and planning work should have commenced MUCH sooner if that was the goal!

+1

I appreciated the Council members making clear how unrealistic they thought the timeline was.

It's an interesting dynamic with 2 of the BoE members running for Council - Yang and Silvestre? If they're not able to bring that kind of tough questioning -- and willingness to withhold approval -- I personally wouldn't vote to send them to County Council.

Yang brings receipts and asks the thought questions. Silvestre looks barely awake during BOE meetings. She only perks up when someone mentions dual enrollment so she can double dip.

Her interests are with her employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

STEM will attract a lot more students. Also, IB needs outside cordination with rigid program structure. It may be harder to implement well in new place compared to STEM. Not excusing anything wrong in IB at Kenneddy, just thinking aloud here.

STEM magnet with strong teachers who can provide solid educational experience with a plethora of well-designed courses can attract strong students. STEM program with just providing MVC, AP stat and Physics C won’t.

At this point anything is better than what we have now. They need to poll families about ib.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would not look at this as 27 programs.

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


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

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

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

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

And how many schools will lose teachers that move to these new programs, and how will MCPS replace them.

Many kids will also move to these programs. So all teachers don't need to be replaced. That's why MCPS needs to share exact numbers for all these programs and what extra resourse they need.

High school teachers teach 5 classes per day, of about 25-30 students apiece. So let’s say a biology teacher at School A is teaching 125 students per year.

Now say that biology teacher goes to the biomedical magnet at School B.

About 25-50 student per year will get into each regional program. Total. So School A might lost 5-10 students to the biomed magnet at School B, along with that one teacher.

Who will teach the remaining 100 or so kids who still need to take biology (a graduation requirement) at School A?

[Anonymous]

It is not necessary for the programs analysis proposal to pass concurrently with the boundary study. Why the boundary study is occurring is because school cluster boundaries need to be updated due to the opening of two new high schools.

New region boundaries do not need to be drawn at the same time the cluster boundaries are approved. MCPS is trying to persuade the public to “just go along with everything” under this false assumption of urgency, that the programs analysis “must” be passed in December alongside the boundary study. No, the two do not need to be passed at the same 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:It is not realistic to implement so many big changes (6 regions, each with 6 core programs; 2 new high schools are up and running; running the grandfathered programs concurrently with the regional programs) in such a short time frame (they want to start signing students up NEXT FALL), given MCPS is still collecting data, does not have a staff or cost analysis, stakeholders have not been adequately engaged, and given the fiscal picture (the economy is shaky and our county is dependent on federal workers who are facing job loss). It is improbable that a fully fleshed out plan will be ready in December for BOE approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

STEM will attract a lot more students. Also, IB needs outside cordination with rigid program structure. It may be harder to implement well in new place compared to STEM. Not excusing anything wrong in IB at Kenneddy, just thinking aloud here.

STEM magnet with strong teachers who can provide solid educational experience with a plethora of well-designed courses can attract strong students. STEM program with just providing MVC, AP stat and Physics C won’t.

At this point anything is better than what we have now. They need to poll families about ib.

What CO should do is to provide a thorough analysis why regional IB model works for some schools but not some others? Is the program coordinator the key? If yes, how does MCPS assure the new program coordinator will not make the same mistake in the future? Otherwise you’ll just run from one failure to another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

STEM will attract a lot more students. Also, IB needs outside cordination with rigid program structure. It may be harder to implement well in new place compared to STEM. Not excusing anything wrong in IB at Kenneddy, just thinking aloud here.

STEM magnet with strong teachers who can provide solid educational experience with a plethora of well-designed courses can attract strong students. STEM program with just providing MVC, AP stat and Physics C won’t.

MVC and Phy C can't be the only thing for regional STEM programs. That's nothing and available in most schools with enough interested students. Hopefully, it's a baseline and available in every school even if only 10 students can take it in some schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Since you understood it, can you please elaborate?

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

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

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

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

That was the goal of the Regional IB program at Kennedy. But it hasn’t worked. The program is a disaster, the coordinator responsible for the IB Diploma Program left and the school is on its third principal in the last 4 years.

STEM will attract a lot more students. Also, IB needs outside cordination with rigid program structure. It may be harder to implement well in new place compared to STEM. Not excusing anything wrong in IB at Kenneddy, just thinking aloud here.

STEM magnet with strong teachers who can provide solid educational experience with a plethora of well-designed courses can attract strong students. STEM program with just providing MVC, AP stat and Physics C won’t.

MVC and Phy C can't be the only thing for regional STEM programs. That's nothing and available in most schools with enough interested students. Hopefully, it's a baseline and available in every school even if only 10 students can take it in some schools.

Unfortunately these are the only additional courses currently considered for STEM magnet program. They are probably not going to share in the next meeting but will share some sample curricula for other programs, where you can just infer what MCPS’ definition of STEM magnet program is. They are no from close from adapting the SMCS curriculum. No, the new STEM program is less than what W’s can offer right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS looks so underprepared. The only way they can dig their way out of this is if the BOE presentation is dramatically better and I just don't have the confidence they will pull that off.

Why is Essie, who not new to the County Council or MCPS, showing up like this?

Yeah, I thought this was interesting. At least Niki Porter showed up at the table...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie's point about WANTING the Boundary and Program models to line up is ideal, but in order to DO THAT, the investigative and planning work should have commenced MUCH sooner if that was the goal!

+1

I appreciated the Council members making clear how unrealistic they thought the timeline was.

It's an interesting dynamic with 2 of the BoE members running for Council - Yang and Silvestre? If they're not able to bring that kind of tough questioning -- and willingness to withhold approval -- I personally wouldn't vote to send them to County Council.

Yang brings receipts and asks the thought questions. Silvestre looks barely awake during BOE meetings. She only perks up when someone mentions dual enrollment so she can double dip.

Interesting that Silverstre thinks she can win a county council seat.