Will 6 Region Model Pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I finally found this, which was posted on a thread from earlier this year:

Stats on magnet enrollment by home school:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1284587.page

Thanks so much for posting this! This is actually super interesting and I would never have known where to find this info.

[Anonymous]

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

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

lol so true. They didn’t even analyze the programs either in terms of whether existing programs are successful or drawing applicants or whatnot. This is an enormous change with very costly implications and they seem like they just put together a few plans over lunch at Panera or something.

[Anonymous]

Seneca Valley HS becomes region 6?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

lol so true. They didn’t even analyze the programs either in terms of whether existing programs are successful or drawing applicants or whatnot. This is an enormous change with very costly implications and they seem like they just put together a few plans over lunch at Panera or something.

No, nor have they asked families what is important to them/what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seneca Valley HS becomes region 6?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

lol so true. They didn’t even analyze the programs either in terms of whether existing programs are successful or drawing applicants or whatnot. This is an enormous change with very costly implications and they seem like they just put together a few plans over lunch at Panera or something.

No, nor have they asked families what is important to them/what they want.

it strikes me that since so few kids are in the magnets it isn't really a thing people generally care about. from a whole-school perspective there are likely much much more important issues (e.g., absenteeism, scores, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

[Anonymous]

That chart doesn’t have the data to show how many kids in the DCC don't attend their home school for other reasons. My kid attends Einstein so they can choose from a wider variety of visual art and instrumental music classes compared to wheaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

What happens when there isn't enough interest in the education program at Einstein? What happens when the SMCS and VAC teachers get poached to other regions? Parents dgaf about what programs are called. They care about whether they actually are delivering what their kids need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

What happens when there isn't enough interest in the education program at Einstein? What happens when the SMCS and VAC teachers get poached to other regions? Parents dgaf about what programs are called. They care about whether they actually are delivering what their kids need.

The education program will most definitely fail. Einstein is in deep trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

What happens when there isn't enough interest in the education program at Einstein? What happens when the SMCS and VAC teachers get poached to other regions? Parents dgaf about what programs are called. They care about whether they actually are delivering what their kids need.

The education program will most definitely fail. Einstein is in deep trouble.

There is no demand for it. Einstein had it and they shut it down.

[Anonymous]

They're missing a huge opportunity with these special programs. The fundamental problem with all of of the options for new school boundaries is the crazy amount of split articulation.

But they could address a lot of this by by being thoughful about the special programs.

They don't need to use split articulation to get as close as possible to a school's actual capacity. They can keep MS kids together going to HS. Some schools will be more under capacity than others, and those can be given a large and likely popular magnet program to make up the difference. Likewise, if keeping MS kids together means some school will remain over their max capacity, they can a) not give that school a special program, and b) put a very attractive program at a nearby school to encourage kids/parents to voluntarily shift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're missing a huge opportunity with these special programs. The fundamental problem with all of of the options for new school boundaries is the crazy amount of split articulation.

But they could address a lot of this by by being thoughful about the special programs.

They don't need to use split articulation to get as close as possible to a school's actual capacity. They can keep MS kids together going to HS. Some schools will be more under capacity than others, and those can be given a large and likely popular magnet program to make up the difference. Likewise, if keeping MS kids together means some school will remain over their max capacity, they can a) not give that school a special program, and b) put a very attractive program at a nearby school to encourage kids/parents to voluntarily shift.

The people conducting the study don't live in the area and have no clue about distances/transportation or any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

What happens when there isn't enough interest in the education program at Einstein? What happens when the SMCS and VAC teachers get poached to other regions? Parents dgaf about what programs are called. They care about whether they actually are delivering what their kids need.

There are already isn’t interest in the Einstein education program. Only 20some students participating and they’ve tried to shut it down previosuly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

Nah, they're not going to make big changes on how to distribute the programs, both because they don't have time to and because they don't really care about whether their choices are terrible. (They'll probably make a couple minor changes, brag about how it shows they are considering community feedback and this isn't top-down, and leave everything else the same.) And because they're not really trying to figure out which programs actually make sense to host at each school-- they're just trying to figure out what's easiest to launch at each school on a short timeline, which is often a really inequitable way of doing things.

The ironic and frankly kind of tragic thing is that their initial case for this program analysis made so much sense-- that the current set of programs were developed over time for a variety of reasons and ended up as a complicated and inequitable hodge-podge, and so MCPS should pause and make some thoughtful and intentional choices about what programs should look like and where they should be located, so they can then make some changes and move towards a new, better, fairer system.

But then they promptly threw all that out the window in favor of "What can we pull together in 6 months and implement in a year under tight budget constraints?" Which of course is going to result in boatloads of unintended/negative consequences, most of which are highly foreseeable and could be easily avoided if they just slowed down, spent some time really figuring out what it takes to launch new programs and what's realistic, and were willing to solicit and seriously consider feedback from teachers, admin, parents, and students. Instead the change is just from "old set of programs developed over time and not carefully thought out to make sure programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker" to "new set of programs developed all at once but not carefully thought out to make sure that programs are strong, access is fair, and the programs are worth their cost and make MCPS stronger rather than weaker." And they don't care who gets hurt as a result or how much money it costs because for some reason they think that's a big enough upgrade to be worth it.

DP - and a DCC parent - personally, I agree that the current mix of programs across the county is a mess and needs to go. But I also don’t think it should be replaced by still more special programs. The focus should be on rigorous academic differentiation and support as needed for *all* MCPS high schools. Enough with the cool stuff. Make sure kids can read well, write well, have access to strong math and science, etc. It should not be this complicated.