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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this thread can collect ppl's feeling/feedback from last night's in-person meeting as well as new information. I'll share first my experience:

1. Central office sent like 50 employees, so people can't gather in large groups or voice out loudly. Essie and Nikki were both in the feedback room, but they didn't host a gathered session but rather only allow individual discussion. Jennie was in the cafeteria presenting the regional model, which consistently gathered good size of audience (~ 30 or more). It's like a conference poster session setting.

2. They will present a "version 3" regional model in Nov. 20 BOE meeting, where some details will be modified.

3. A NEC/DCC transportation POC was there, and said they would use the NEC/DCC transportation model rather than the HS-HS model so to make sure visiting neighborhoods. I've checked the 2016 METIS report and estimated the 2025 dollar-equivalent: it's about 1.6 million/year operating cost for DCC. As a contrast, the Oct. 16 BOE meeting slides had $740K/year operating cost estimation. So expecting the yearly operating cost to double at least.

4. Nikki and Jennie gave very different answers to questions. They appeared thinking right on spot of whatever answer they can think of. For example, I asked if a program is later evaluated not sustainable (e.g., low enrollment, can't acquire teachers, poor score metrics, etc.), will this program get cancelled across-board. Nikki said they would put more money into that program until it's successful, and no program would fail. Jennie gave a much more realistic reply, although still quite funny. They would maintain the same "theme" but change the program to another "sub-theme" to see if it would work. She gave an example that they could change "fashion design" to "game design", as if they would require the same set of expertise from teachers.

5. STEM program POC said she hadn't contacted SMCS coordinators nor teachers for curriculum design. She "will do" once the regional model gets approved. So current 7th grader need to make a decision based on a program without curriculum or teaching staffs. Jennie said the STEM program will have the 8th period to accommodate the additional CS courses.

6. I've told two staffs that my questions/feedback using the online google form never got addressed in Q&A doc or BOE meeting. They told me to "keep on submitting another form".

7. Jennie said the criteria-based programs won't use lottery. She might consider use local-norm of MAP-M and other metric scores if waitlist is too long for one region over another.

My gut feeling: Jennie is the one leading the design of details. If you have any detailed suggestion/tweak that you think might be very useful, contact her directly. Nikki and Essie know absolutely no detail and no interest to know at all. So they say nonsense. This entire regional model is an absolute "top-down" thing and they have absolutely no interest of compromising a little bit (e.g., slow down, scale back, use community feedback). The current 7th grader will be the unfortunate guinea pig.

Regarding number 7, that is ridiculous. So the scores to get into programs will be different for different regions. So your zip code actually DOES determine your access to programs if they locally norm your score based on your zip code. They are waltzing around saying your zip code shouldn’t be determinative. So then don’t recalculate STANDARDIZED test scores.

You do realize the same criteria can get like 1000 qualified applicants in Region 4 (Wootton, Churchill, RM, Rockville) vs. maybe 100 qualified applicants in Region 2 (James hubert, Paint branch, springbrook, sherwood), right? It's not just because of the academic performance, but also parents and students interests and vesting in education. So they'd have to either use a higher criteria for Region 4 or use a lottery. Honestly I'd think a higher criteria would be much more reasonable but then it would result in a much stronger program in Region 4 vs. Region 2 over years, which is inequitable. If you use lottery, the criteria-based program will wither as kids can get much less trouble and equally good or better education in local HSs.

I personally would rather they scale the programs than have different criteria or lotteries. If you don’t have as many applicants in a region who can handle a program, have a strong but smaller program there. If you have many, have a bigger program. The issue they are trying to solve is literally having more interested capable students than they have seats. So put more seats where you have interested students, not where you don’t.

I wish they could create a bigger program if more qualified applicants are interested. However, they don’t put one dollar into enrolling more teachers, and a school is bounded by its capacity, so expanding is not likely happen in reasonable scale. They other thing I was concerning is if they use the current qualification criteria (taking algebra 1, gpa >=3.0 for SMCS and taking one semester of foreign language), nearly the entire Wootton and Churchill students qualify, and stem program looses its meaning.

The justification for them to create 6 regions is to eliminate the 2000 kids on the waitlist for SMCS and RMIB. Did they ever analyze the stats of those on the waitlist? No they don’t. It can be ridiculously low or vary vastly. The admitted students have a much higher stats than the current criteria.

They didn't say 2,000 kids on wait lists for SMCS and RMIB. They said 2,000 kids total are left on a waitlist or wait pool at the end of the process. This could include interest-based programs. I asked for some clarification last night, including how many students apply to programs in general and how many students that remain in a wait list or wait pool were also accepted to/chose to attend a different program. I also asked how many of the 2,000 kids were not accepted into any programs they applied to. The person I was speaking to had no answers to any of these questions. She claimed that the county shared data about number of applicants from each high school, but I'm pretty sure she was referring to the graph that talks about number of attendees for each of the criterion based programs.

2,000 students left on the wait list - those were students who simply checked the box to apply, not necessarily students with serious interest in attending the programs. If you just have to check a box, why not "apply" and be on "the wait list"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can't get rid of Taylor fast enough.

[Anonymous]

People need to keep emailing the board with concerns. And get your friends to email too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can't get rid of Taylor fast enough.

I have seen no signs so far that the Board is unhappy enough with him to consider terminating his contract early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to keep emailing the board with concerns. And get your friends to email too.

Don't forget County Council, especially Mink, Jawando, and Fani-Gonzalez. They may not have immediate authority here but they have influence, and at minimum they have shown they are willing to ask tough questions and push for changes (they are planning to do another hearing with MCPS in December, unless something has changed)... which is sadly more than you can say for most BoE members.

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

Ask these folks if the transition will be better or worse than it was for curriculum 2.0.—which was a complete nightmare for kids in the guinea pig year. MCPS does not do transitions well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this thread can collect ppl's feeling/feedback from last night's in-person meeting as well as new information. I'll share first my experience:

1. Central office sent like 50 employees, so people can't gather in large groups or voice out loudly. Essie and Nikki were both in the feedback room, but they didn't host a gathered session but rather only allow individual discussion. Jennie was in the cafeteria presenting the regional model, which consistently gathered good size of audience (~ 30 or more). It's like a conference poster session setting.

2. They will present a "version 3" regional model in Nov. 20 BOE meeting, where some details will be modified.

3. A NEC/DCC transportation POC was there, and said they would use the NEC/DCC transportation model rather than the HS-HS model so to make sure visiting neighborhoods. I've checked the 2016 METIS report and estimated the 2025 dollar-equivalent: it's about 1.6 million/year operating cost for DCC. As a contrast, the Oct. 16 BOE meeting slides had $740K/year operating cost estimation. So expecting the yearly operating cost to double at least.

4. Nikki and Jennie gave very different answers to questions. They appeared thinking right on spot of whatever answer they can think of. For example, I asked if a program is later evaluated not sustainable (e.g., low enrollment, can't acquire teachers, poor score metrics, etc.), will this program get cancelled across-board. Nikki said they would put more money into that program until it's successful, and no program would fail. Jennie gave a much more realistic reply, although still quite funny. They would maintain the same "theme" but change the program to another "sub-theme" to see if it would work. She gave an example that they could change "fashion design" to "game design", as if they would require the same set of expertise from teachers.

5. STEM program POC said she hadn't contacted SMCS coordinators nor teachers for curriculum design. She "will do" once the regional model gets approved. So current 7th grader need to make a decision based on a program without curriculum or teaching staffs. Jennie said the STEM program will have the 8th period to accommodate the additional CS courses.

6. I've told two staffs that my questions/feedback using the online google form never got addressed in Q&A doc or BOE meeting. They told me to "keep on submitting another form".

7. Jennie said the criteria-based programs won't use lottery. She might consider use local-norm of MAP-M and other metric scores if waitlist is too long for one region over another.

My gut feeling: Jennie is the one leading the design of details. If you have any detailed suggestion/tweak that you think might be very useful, contact her directly. Nikki and Essie know absolutely no detail and no interest to know at all. So they say nonsense. This entire regional model is an absolute "top-down" thing and they have absolutely no interest of compromising a little bit (e.g., slow down, scale back, use community feedback). The current 7th grader will be the unfortunate guinea pig.

Regarding number 7, that is ridiculous. So the scores to get into programs will be different for different regions. So your zip code actually DOES determine your access to programs if they locally norm your score based on your zip code. They are waltzing around saying your zip code shouldn’t be determinative. So then don’t recalculate STANDARDIZED test scores.

You do realize the same criteria can get like 1000 qualified applicants in Region 4 (Wootton, Churchill, RM, Rockville) vs. maybe 100 qualified applicants in Region 2 (James hubert, Paint branch, springbrook, sherwood), right? It's not just because of the academic performance, but also parents and students interests and vesting in education. So they'd have to either use a higher criteria for Region 4 or use a lottery. Honestly I'd think a higher criteria would be much more reasonable but then it would result in a much stronger program in Region 4 vs. Region 2 over years, which is inequitable. If you use lottery, the criteria-based program will wither as kids can get much less trouble and equally good or better education in local HSs.

I personally would rather they scale the programs than have different criteria or lotteries. If you don’t have as many applicants in a region who can handle a program, have a strong but smaller program there. If you have many, have a bigger program. The issue they are trying to solve is literally having more interested capable students than they have seats. So put more seats where you have interested students, not where you don’t.

I wish they could create a bigger program if more qualified applicants are interested. However, they don’t put one dollar into enrolling more teachers, and a school is bounded by its capacity, so expanding is not likely happen in reasonable scale. They other thing I was concerning is if they use the current qualification criteria (taking algebra 1, gpa >=3.0 for SMCS and taking one semester of foreign language), nearly the entire Wootton and Churchill students qualify, and stem program looses its meaning.

The justification for them to create 6 regions is to eliminate the 2000 kids on the waitlist for SMCS and RMIB. Did they ever analyze the stats of those on the waitlist? No they don’t. It can be ridiculously low or vary vastly. The admitted students have a much higher stats than the current criteria.

They didn't say 2,000 kids on wait lists for SMCS and RMIB. They said 2,000 kids total are left on a waitlist or wait pool at the end of the process. This could include interest-based programs. I asked for some clarification last night, including how many students apply to programs in general and how many students that remain in a wait list or wait pool were also accepted to/chose to attend a different program. I also asked how many of the 2,000 kids were not accepted into any programs they applied to. The person I was speaking to had no answers to any of these questions. She claimed that the county shared data about number of applicants from each high school, but I'm pretty sure she was referring to the graph that talks about number of attendees for each of the criterion based programs.

2,000 students left on the wait list - those were students who simply checked the box to apply, not necessarily students with serious interest in attending the programs. If you just have to check a box, why not "apply" and be on "the wait list"?

They go to their home schools. Lucky ones have advanced classes so it’s not a big deal. Unlucky have to take what is offered or Mc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this thread can collect ppl's feeling/feedback from last night's in-person meeting as well as new information. I'll share first my experience:

1. Central office sent like 50 employees, so people can't gather in large groups or voice out loudly. Essie and Nikki were both in the feedback room, but they didn't host a gathered session but rather only allow individual discussion. Jennie was in the cafeteria presenting the regional model, which consistently gathered good size of audience (~ 30 or more). It's like a conference poster session setting.

2. They will present a "version 3" regional model in Nov. 20 BOE meeting, where some details will be modified.

3. A NEC/DCC transportation POC was there, and said they would use the NEC/DCC transportation model rather than the HS-HS model so to make sure visiting neighborhoods. I've checked the 2016 METIS report and estimated the 2025 dollar-equivalent: it's about 1.6 million/year operating cost for DCC. As a contrast, the Oct. 16 BOE meeting slides had $740K/year operating cost estimation. So expecting the yearly operating cost to double at least.

4. Nikki and Jennie gave very different answers to questions. They appeared thinking right on spot of whatever answer they can think of. For example, I asked if a program is later evaluated not sustainable (e.g., low enrollment, can't acquire teachers, poor score metrics, etc.), will this program get cancelled across-board. Nikki said they would put more money into that program until it's successful, and no program would fail. Jennie gave a much more realistic reply, although still quite funny. They would maintain the same "theme" but change the program to another "sub-theme" to see if it would work. She gave an example that they could change "fashion design" to "game design", as if they would require the same set of expertise from teachers.

5. STEM program POC said she hadn't contacted SMCS coordinators nor teachers for curriculum design. She "will do" once the regional model gets approved. So current 7th grader need to make a decision based on a program without curriculum or teaching staffs. Jennie said the STEM program will have the 8th period to accommodate the additional CS courses.

6. I've told two staffs that my questions/feedback using the online google form never got addressed in Q&A doc or BOE meeting. They told me to "keep on submitting another form".

7. Jennie said the criteria-based programs won't use lottery. She might consider use local-norm of MAP-M and other metric scores if waitlist is too long for one region over another.

My gut feeling: Jennie is the one leading the design of details. If you have any detailed suggestion/tweak that you think might be very useful, contact her directly. Nikki and Essie know absolutely no detail and no interest to know at all. So they say nonsense. This entire regional model is an absolute "top-down" thing and they have absolutely no interest of compromising a little bit (e.g., slow down, scale back, use community feedback). The current 7th grader will be the unfortunate guinea pig.

Regarding number 7, that is ridiculous. So the scores to get into programs will be different for different regions. So your zip code actually DOES determine your access to programs if they locally norm your score based on your zip code. They are waltzing around saying your zip code shouldn’t be determinative. So then don’t recalculate STANDARDIZED test scores.

You do realize the same criteria can get like 1000 qualified applicants in Region 4 (Wootton, Churchill, RM, Rockville) vs. maybe 100 qualified applicants in Region 2 (James hubert, Paint branch, springbrook, sherwood), right? It's not just because of the academic performance, but also parents and students interests and vesting in education. So they'd have to either use a higher criteria for Region 4 or use a lottery. Honestly I'd think a higher criteria would be much more reasonable but then it would result in a much stronger program in Region 4 vs. Region 2 over years, which is inequitable. If you use lottery, the criteria-based program will wither as kids can get much less trouble and equally good or better education in local HSs.

I personally would rather they scale the programs than have different criteria or lotteries. If you don’t have as many applicants in a region who can handle a program, have a strong but smaller program there. If you have many, have a bigger program. The issue they are trying to solve is literally having more interested capable students than they have seats. So put more seats where you have interested students, not where you don’t.

I wish they could create a bigger program if more qualified applicants are interested. However, they don’t put one dollar into enrolling more teachers, and a school is bounded by its capacity, so expanding is not likely happen in reasonable scale. They other thing I was concerning is if they use the current qualification criteria (taking algebra 1, gpa >=3.0 for SMCS and taking one semester of foreign language), nearly the entire Wootton and Churchill students qualify, and stem program looses its meaning.

The justification for them to create 6 regions is to eliminate the 2000 kids on the waitlist for SMCS and RMIB. Did they ever analyze the stats of those on the waitlist? No they don’t. It can be ridiculously low or vary vastly. The admitted students have a much higher stats than the current criteria.

They didn't say 2,000 kids on wait lists for SMCS and RMIB. They said 2,000 kids total are left on a waitlist or wait pool at the end of the process. This could include interest-based programs. I asked for some clarification last night, including how many students apply to programs in general and how many students that remain in a wait list or wait pool were also accepted to/chose to attend a different program. I also asked how many of the 2,000 kids were not accepted into any programs they applied to. The person I was speaking to had no answers to any of these questions. She claimed that the county shared data about number of applicants from each high school, but I'm pretty sure she was referring to the graph that talks about number of attendees for each of the criterion based programs.

2,000 students left on the wait list - those were students who simply checked the box to apply, not necessarily students with serious interest in attending the programs. If you just have to check a box, why not "apply" and be on "the wait list"?

+1 They are supposed to be doing a program ANALYSIS. How about you analyze the data you have?

Plus, I’ll tell you what. That data you have is not representative of much. Kids who wanted a countywide program under the current paradigm might not care about a regional one. And kids who didn’t want a program might want one if it’s closer/in their school. And obviously people might make very different decisions based on the transportation or based on their new boundaries, which are totally up in the air. This is why it should NOT be inextricably linked. And heaven forbid you actually ask/poll people rather than guessing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can't get rid of Taylor fast enough.

I have seen no signs so far that the Board is unhappy enough with him to consider terminating his contract early.

Yes, we are going to wait until everything is torn apart and Frankensteined back together, when the system collapses, before we get rid of him. He will probably tear out of here himself, just before the collapse. He'll accept a teaching position at UVA, which turns out to have DOGE-like qualities. Taylor will fit right in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this thread can collect ppl's feeling/feedback from last night's in-person meeting as well as new information. I'll share first my experience:

1. Central office sent like 50 employees, so people can't gather in large groups or voice out loudly. Essie and Nikki were both in the feedback room, but they didn't host a gathered session but rather only allow individual discussion. Jennie was in the cafeteria presenting the regional model, which consistently gathered good size of audience (~ 30 or more). It's like a conference poster session setting.

2. They will present a "version 3" regional model in Nov. 20 BOE meeting, where some details will be modified.

3. A NEC/DCC transportation POC was there, and said they would use the NEC/DCC transportation model rather than the HS-HS model so to make sure visiting neighborhoods. I've checked the 2016 METIS report and estimated the 2025 dollar-equivalent: it's about 1.6 million/year operating cost for DCC. As a contrast, the Oct. 16 BOE meeting slides had $740K/year operating cost estimation. So expecting the yearly operating cost to double at least.

4. Nikki and Jennie gave very different answers to questions. They appeared thinking right on spot of whatever answer they can think of. For example, I asked if a program is later evaluated not sustainable (e.g., low enrollment, can't acquire teachers, poor score metrics, etc.), will this program get cancelled across-board. Nikki said they would put more money into that program until it's successful, and no program would fail. Jennie gave a much more realistic reply, although still quite funny. They would maintain the same "theme" but change the program to another "sub-theme" to see if it would work. She gave an example that they could change "fashion design" to "game design", as if they would require the same set of expertise from teachers.

5. STEM program POC said she hadn't contacted SMCS coordinators nor teachers for curriculum design. She "will do" once the regional model gets approved. So current 7th grader need to make a decision based on a program without curriculum or teaching staffs. Jennie said the STEM program will have the 8th period to accommodate the additional CS courses.

6. I've told two staffs that my questions/feedback using the online google form never got addressed in Q&A doc or BOE meeting. They told me to "keep on submitting another form".

7. Jennie said the criteria-based programs won't use lottery. She might consider use local-norm of MAP-M and other metric scores if waitlist is too long for one region over another.

My gut feeling: Jennie is the one leading the design of details. If you have any detailed suggestion/tweak that you think might be very useful, contact her directly. Nikki and Essie know absolutely no detail and no interest to know at all. So they say nonsense. This entire regional model is an absolute "top-down" thing and they have absolutely no interest of compromising a little bit (e.g., slow down, scale back, use community feedback). The current 7th grader will be the unfortunate guinea pig.

Regarding number 7, that is ridiculous. So the scores to get into programs will be different for different regions. So your zip code actually DOES determine your access to programs if they locally norm your score based on your zip code. They are waltzing around saying your zip code shouldn’t be determinative. So then don’t recalculate STANDARDIZED test scores.

You do realize the same criteria can get like 1000 qualified applicants in Region 4 (Wootton, Churchill, RM, Rockville) vs. maybe 100 qualified applicants in Region 2 (James hubert, Paint branch, springbrook, sherwood), right? It's not just because of the academic performance, but also parents and students interests and vesting in education. So they'd have to either use a higher criteria for Region 4 or use a lottery. Honestly I'd think a higher criteria would be much more reasonable but then it would result in a much stronger program in Region 4 vs. Region 2 over years, which is inequitable. If you use lottery, the criteria-based program will wither as kids can get much less trouble and equally good or better education in local HSs.

I personally would rather they scale the programs than have different criteria or lotteries. If you don’t have as many applicants in a region who can handle a program, have a strong but smaller program there. If you have many, have a bigger program. The issue they are trying to solve is literally having more interested capable students than they have seats. So put more seats where you have interested students, not where you don’t.

I wish they could create a bigger program if more qualified applicants are interested. However, they don’t put one dollar into enrolling more teachers, and a school is bounded by its capacity, so expanding is not likely happen in reasonable scale. They other thing I was concerning is if they use the current qualification criteria (taking algebra 1, gpa >=3.0 for SMCS and taking one semester of foreign language), nearly the entire Wootton and Churchill students qualify, and stem program looses its meaning.

The justification for them to create 6 regions is to eliminate the 2000 kids on the waitlist for SMCS and RMIB. Did they ever analyze the stats of those on the waitlist? No they don’t. It can be ridiculously low or vary vastly. The admitted students have a much higher stats than the current criteria.

They didn't say 2,000 kids on wait lists for SMCS and RMIB. They said 2,000 kids total are left on a waitlist or wait pool at the end of the process. This could include interest-based programs. I asked for some clarification last night, including how many students apply to programs in general and how many students that remain in a wait list or wait pool were also accepted to/chose to attend a different program. I also asked how many of the 2,000 kids were not accepted into any programs they applied to. The person I was speaking to had no answers to any of these questions. She claimed that the county shared data about number of applicants from each high school, but I'm pretty sure she was referring to the graph that talks about number of attendees for each of the criterion based programs.

2,000 students left on the wait list - those were students who simply checked the box to apply, not necessarily students with serious interest in attending the programs. If you just have to check a box, why not "apply" and be on "the wait list"?

This is like saying there are 2000 people on the Harvard waitlist, so if we open a bunch of new Harvards in Arkansas and Nebraska and Nevada, with whatever teachers live there, and no funding, all those waitlisted students will totally be qualified and interested, you know, because they were random applicants to the actual Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Here’s what I want to know from the data.

How many who had a closer regional IB than RM applied for both vs one? How many were accepted to either or both? What decision did they make? Then maybe a survey to those folks asking some questions.

Also how many times are kids counted on the wait list? My child applied for 5 or 6 programs, got into one that wasn’t really an interest but he applied for to go to a different DCC school if he couldn’t get it through choice.

He ended up on 3 wait lists at various numbers from 70 to 250 is he reflected in that 2000 number once or three times?

I don’t think they did anything but a very cursory look at the numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I want to know from the data.

How many who had a closer regional IB than RM applied for both vs one? How many were accepted to either or both? What decision did they make? Then maybe a survey to those folks asking some questions.

Also how many times are kids counted on the wait list? My child applied for 5 or 6 programs, got into one that wasn’t really an interest but he applied for to go to a different DCC school if he couldn’t get it through choice.

He ended up on 3 wait lists at various numbers from 70 to 250 is he reflected in that 2000 number once or three times?

I don’t think they did anything but a very cursory look at the numbers.

These are good questions which it would be really helpful if they'd answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I want to know from the data.

How many who had a closer regional IB than RM applied for both vs one? How many were accepted to either or both? What decision did they make? Then maybe a survey to those folks asking some questions.

Also how many times are kids counted on the wait list? My child applied for 5 or 6 programs, got into one that wasn’t really an interest but he applied for to go to a different DCC school if he couldn’t get it through choice.

He ended up on 3 wait lists at various numbers from 70 to 250 is he reflected in that 2000 number once or three times?

I don’t think they did anything but a very cursory look at the numbers.

These are good questions which it would be really helpful if they'd answer.

They will never answer these questions clearly because they didn't do an adequate survey nor data analysis. They have a pre-determined agenda (e.g., the Earth's surface is flat) and then they claim it again and again no matter you buy-in or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I want to know from the data.

How many who had a closer regional IB than RM applied for both vs one? How many were accepted to either or both? What decision did they make? Then maybe a survey to those folks asking some questions.

Also how many times are kids counted on the wait list? My child applied for 5 or 6 programs, got into one that wasn’t really an interest but he applied for to go to a different DCC school if he couldn’t get it through choice.

He ended up on 3 wait lists at various numbers from 70 to 250 is he reflected in that 2000 number once or three times?

I don’t think they did anything but a very cursory look at the numbers.

These are good questions which it would be really helpful if they'd answer.

They will never answer these questions clearly because they didn't do an adequate survey nor data analysis. They have a pre-determined agenda (e.g., the Earth's surface is flat) and then they claim it again and again no matter you buy-in or not.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s what I want to know from the data.

How many who had a closer regional IB than RM applied for both vs one? How many were accepted to either or both? What decision did they make? Then maybe a survey to those folks asking some questions.

Also how many times are kids counted on the wait list? My child applied for 5 or 6 programs, got into one that wasn’t really an interest but he applied for to go to a different DCC school if he couldn’t get it through choice.

He ended up on 3 wait lists at various numbers from 70 to 250 is he reflected in that 2000 number once or three times?

I don’t think they did anything but a very cursory look at the numbers.

These are good questions which it would be really helpful if they'd answer.

They will never answer these questions clearly because they didn't do an adequate survey nor data analysis. They have a pre-determined agenda (e.g., the Earth's surface is flat) and then they claim it again and again no matter you buy-in or not.

+2