New presentation & FAQ up for program analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

They don't offer a variety now. So, its going to get worse, not better.

WJ is going to lose a lot of staff.

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

No, but what you are missing is that for over a decade MCPS has been telling the 3,000+ WJ families that having a large school is so great because you have so many choices, and now they will put the school at 70% or 80% capacity and it's like pulling the rug out from under you. They can't have it both ways.

And, they need to start WJ that low becuase of all the nonstop building that keeps bringing more and more kids - looking at the White Flint sector plan for example (despite the drop in numbers in MCPS, 2 of the ESs are over capacity and both MSs in the cluster are at about their 1200 capacity, which is too large for a MS anyway). WJ will be back up to capacity shortly, even with a smaller starting point - it's one of the main reasons they had to reopen Woodward in the first place. But it will be bleak for kids for a couple of years before that happens.

[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:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

They don't offer a variety now. So, its going to get worse, not better.

WJ is going to lose a lot of staff.

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

This makes no sense. It will be an issue losing teachers. I’m not sure what they can cut at Einstein as there is not a lot there. I’m assuming they will cut more ap and electives like the arts. WJ will have big programming cuts.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

They don't offer a variety now. So, its going to get worse, not better.

WJ is going to lose a lot of staff.

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

No, but what you are missing is that for over a decade MCPS has been telling the 3,000+ WJ families that having a large school is so great because you have so many choices, and now they will put the school at 70% or 80% capacity and it's like pulling the rug out from under you. They can't have it both ways.

And, they need to start WJ that low becuase of all the nonstop building that keeps bringing more and more kids - looking at the White Flint sector plan for example (despite the drop in numbers in MCPS, 2 of the ESs are over capacity and both MSs in the cluster are at about their 1200 capacity, which is too large for a MS anyway). WJ will be back up to capacity shortly, even with a smaller starting point - it's one of the main reasons they had to reopen Woodward in the first place. But it will be bleak for kids for a couple of years before that happens.

Bleak is an overstatement. The school may have to combine Ceramics 1/2 into a single class, etc.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

They don't offer a variety now. So, its going to get worse, not better.

WJ is going to lose a lot of staff.

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

This makes no sense. It will be an issue losing teachers. I’m not sure what they can cut at Einstein as there is not a lot there. I’m assuming they will cut more ap and electives like the arts. WJ will have big programming cuts.

That's a strange assumption. They just need fewer sections of the basic core courses and fewer teachers to cover them.

[Anonymous]

I mean, Woodward is going to be hiring staff so …

[Anonymous]

There's someone on here who is purposefully making the opening of Woodward sound like a disaster for WJ. Those of us who have been in overcrowded WJ for years are looking forward to more space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's someone on here who is purposefully making the opening of Woodward sound like a disaster for WJ. Those of us who have been in overcrowded WJ for years are looking forward to more space.

That person is the MVC Einstein parent.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.

It's a great goal. But how they are saying they will implement it (with no new resources, no plans for recruiting or training teachers, no actual full curricula planned - they will only think about 8th grade first and then figure out 10th grade, etc - and no considerations about what happens when only the programs in the rich schools succeed) s incredibly stupid.

If they are replicating the existing programs is there new curricula to develop? If they think mostly current teachers can teach the classes, could this work? Also there are a lot of fed scientists and policy experts who may be interested in a career change right now.

They might try to replicate existing programs but are also proposing many new ones. For example there is currently no criteria based performing arts magnet so that will be new. As to your assertion that current teachers and/or fed scientists can just teach the new classes, that's ridiculous. For example the proposed Medical Science and Healthcare programs at Einstein will be new. Who is going to teach these courses when Einstein loses staff due to the boundary study reducing enrollment and therefore staff allocation? Many of these programs will be set up to fail.

But enrollment would also increase if students enroll in the regional programs, which means staff allocations would increase accordingly.

For Einstein it will likely be a net loss of students on top of the reduction in enrollment due to the boundary change. I don't know how things work in your universe but here in our universe when the school population goes from 2000 to 1600 plus or minus 200 students for regional programs they will lose staff. Einstein will not be getting new staff.

They're getting the same teacher allocation as any other high school based on their enrollment, including any students enrolled in regional programs.

So we agree that the proposed program model does not add staff for the programs. In the case of Einstein, which will have lower enrollment, they will have fewer staff than they do now.

I also am glad you agree with me that high schools do not get additional staff based on their FARMS rates.

I don't see how Einstein will definitely lose teachers in a unique way. Other schools will too. WJ has over 3000 students now. It will shrink after the boundary study and will lose staff.

I didn't say that. I used Einstein as an example but you are correct that other schools will also lose staff. They aren't adding staff for the programs and many schools will lose staff. High FARMS schools that lose staff will be less able to offer a variety of coursework due to the demographics of the kids they serve. Without additional resources, their unfunded programs will fail. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed program model. It isn't a big because it has been raised multiple times with MCPS and they DGAF.

They don't offer a variety now. So, its going to get worse, not better.

WJ is going to lose a lot of staff.

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

This makes no sense. It will be an issue losing teachers. I’m not sure what they can cut at Einstein as there is not a lot there. I’m assuming they will cut more ap and electives like the arts. WJ will have big programming cuts.

Einstein's probably going to lose, what, 20 teachers or so? And 400ish kids, so like 3 classes per grade? So probably about half of the teacher cuts will be offering fewer sections of core courses, and then I wonder where the other half will come from...