Please be aware of what is about to go away:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

This, but ultimately it’s not up to the parents.

“ A design team, made up of families, community members, and school-based staff are meeting now and will recommend what programs should be offered within a reasonable geographic area and what programs should be offered at all schools. ” I would be surprised if the Einstein community didn’t fight for VAPA and VAC.

I want to be clear about this: I am on the program design team as a parent. The members of the team outside of MCPS central office staff have absolutely no power. We regularly bring up concerns, and they are ignored. It is for show only. All decisions are made by central office staff. It is a sham of a process.

With the BOE signing off on it.

Eventually. But for now, MCPS is stating that the recommendations are from the program design team--and that is not accurate. They are from central office staff. They have been presented to the parents/teachers/community memers on the program design team for feedback, and the majority of the time, that feedback is ignored. What you see at Board meetings is exactly what the design team saw, despite members very clearly articulating problems and concerns that are not addressed.

Does the school Board have access to that feedback that’s being ignored by central office staff?

People with direct knowledge should sign up for public comments at the BOE meetings.

The BOE rarely acknowledges anyone who testifies or cares about community concern if you watch the meetings. On a rare occasion you might get a response but no action or follow up to address the concerns.

But at least you know for sure they'll actually hear what you're saying. And just because they don't mention it immediately afterwards doesn't mean they haven't absorbed it for future decision-making/action. Still very worth it IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

This, but ultimately it’s not up to the parents.

“ A design team, made up of families, community members, and school-based staff are meeting now and will recommend what programs should be offered within a reasonable geographic area and what programs should be offered at all schools. ” I would be surprised if the Einstein community didn’t fight for VAPA and VAC.

I want to be clear about this: I am on the program design team as a parent. The members of the team outside of MCPS central office staff have absolutely no power. We regularly bring up concerns, and they are ignored. It is for show only. All decisions are made by central office staff. It is a sham of a process.

With the BOE signing off on it.

Eventually. But for now, MCPS is stating that the recommendations are from the program design team--and that is not accurate. They are from central office staff. They have been presented to the parents/teachers/community memers on the program design team for feedback, and the majority of the time, that feedback is ignored. What you see at Board meetings is exactly what the design team saw, despite members very clearly articulating problems and concerns that are not addressed.

Does the school Board have access to that feedback that’s being ignored by central office staff?

People with direct knowledge should sign up for public comments at the BOE meetings.

The BOE rarely acknowledges anyone who testifies or cares about community concern if you watch the meetings. On a rare occasion you might get a response but no action or follow up to address the concerns.

This +1. I've been listening to every testimony session for the past 2 years, and their responses are nearly identical every time. They always praise student testifiers for squeezing time out, expressing sympathy to testifiers that point out urgent issues (e.g., payroll delay), and then do nothing. Two weeks later they do exactly the same thing, and no follow-up whatsoever.

Still, giving testimony is great to leave a record on the public domain, and there are audience like me who pay attention and will remember. So please sign up if you can! And I'd like to express my personal gratitude to the study team members from the community to try their best to pitch in no matter MCPS is deaf or more deaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

Ugh, that's awful. Can you paste it here?

She really thinks she can just say "Well MCPS told us we weren't allowed to weigh in on any of the program analysis decisions and they were just giving us a vote on them as a courtesy, so we took their word for it and voted yes because they wanted us to even though we disagree, but don't blame us because we have no control over programs" and then get elected to County Council?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

If they don’t have the authority then why discuss it at board meetings and vote on it. Of course they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

Ugh, that's awful. Can you paste it here?

She really thinks she can just say "Well MCPS told us we weren't allowed to weigh in on any of the program analysis decisions and they were just giving us a vote on them as a courtesy, so we took their word for it and voted yes because they wanted us to even though we disagree, but don't blame us because we have no control over programs" and then get elected to County Council?

If they did not agree why vote yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

Ugh, that's awful. Can you paste it here?

She really thinks she can just say "Well MCPS told us we weren't allowed to weigh in on any of the program analysis decisions and they were just giving us a vote on them as a courtesy, so we took their word for it and voted yes because they wanted us to even though we disagree, but don't blame us because we have no control over programs" and then get elected to County Council?

If they did not agree why vote yes.

The vote is not until December but apparently they are telling people they have no authority over program changes so I assume that means they are planning to vote yes no matter what? It doesn't make sense to me either. They get to vote on it, so they get to tell MCPS what they need to see to vote yes and that if they don't see it they will vote no.

[Anonymous]

Has MCPS shared which of the programs will be criteria based and which will be interest/lottery? Or will that differ region to region?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I don’t think you shared it here. Please share if you can.

OK, before sharing, just as a disclaimer upfront: at least Yang replied every of my email suggestion, and brought some of the questions to the BOE meeting (maybe because she got emails from multiple stakeholders). So at least she is listening and tried. But the lack of follow-up is depressing. MCPS can always get away with an answer: "oh this is a great suggestion. We'll look into it." And next meeting, everyone forgets.

Here is Yang's response:
"The board and the school system have different roles. The board's role is policy and budget. The school system is in operation. In terms of the boundary study, boundary decisions will require a vote from the board. However, program design is under the Superintendent's purview. MCPS put in programs, modify programs, or eliminate programs all the time. These decisions do not require a board vote. For example, this past school year, MCPS eliminated one CASE (Curriculum for Agricultural Science Education) program in high school.

However, the board can, through our questions and conversations, help adjust and improve the work of MCPS and can hold the Superintendent accountable for the results."

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing, PP.

Doesn't this statement contradict what Taylor has actually said about this major overhaul being different than changes in individual programs, and that it does require approval from the Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I agree that the BOE does not have a clear understanding of their role.

They are claiming to be passive and unable to jump into the programs study because they aren't voting on it in the way that they are with the Boundary Study. But the BOE's one employee is Dr. Taylor and they write his performance review. The way that Taylor handles this program study will directly impact his performance review. So if Taylor steers the program study in a way that goes against what the board wants, it's reasonable that they can exert pressure on him by reflecting their dissatisfaction with his performance formally and in writing.

But aside from that, just using the Bully Pulpit that they has as board members to say that they disagree with the program study in public, in board meetings, is also valuable and something they absolutely have the power to do as board members.

[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:These changes are going to devastate Einstein which will be left with graphic arts.

Einstein seems to disproportionally lose in all this. Their performing arts are really strong and often celebrated by MCPS (including in today’s social media feed). I understand gradually tweaking the programs to make more sense but not taking two major programs out of Einstein, not replacing them, and significantly reducing its student population which in turn means fewer teachers and fewer offerings. I have a kid at Einstein who loves it and another headed there next year. I want to trust that the offerings will be the same for 8th graders but of course they won’t be. It would be great if we could help build programs at more schools but not by taking it away from others.

I know nothing is set in stone, but I would be surprised if the Einstein community allowed VAPA and VAC to be taken away. It took years to build these programs, and they are a big part of the school’s reputation today. My son graduated from Einstein’s VAC program and now works for Disney+, and has a friend who is a background dancer for Kendrick Lamar, along with other friends who have built amazing careers in the arts. They wouldn’t be where they are today without the training they received at Einstein. This is devastating, VAPA and VAC must stay.

This, but ultimately it’s not up to the parents.

“ A design team, made up of families, community members, and school-based staff are meeting now and will recommend what programs should be offered within a reasonable geographic area and what programs should be offered at all schools. ” I would be surprised if the Einstein community didn’t fight for VAPA and VAC.

I want to be clear about this: I am on the program design team as a parent. The members of the team outside of MCPS central office staff have absolutely no power. We regularly bring up concerns, and they are ignored. It is for show only. All decisions are made by central office staff. It is a sham of a process.

With the BOE signing off on it.

Eventually. But for now, MCPS is stating that the recommendations are from the program design team--and that is not accurate. They are from central office staff. They have been presented to the parents/teachers/community memers on the program design team for feedback, and the majority of the time, that feedback is ignored. What you see at Board meetings is exactly what the design team saw, despite members very clearly articulating problems and concerns that are not addressed.

Does the school Board have access to that feedback that’s being ignored by central office staff?

People with direct knowledge should sign up for public comments at the BOE meetings.

The BOE rarely acknowledges anyone who testifies or cares about community concern if you watch the meetings. On a rare occasion you might get a response but no action or follow up to address the concerns.

But at least you know for sure they'll actually hear what you're saying. And just because they don't mention it immediately afterwards doesn't mean they haven't absorbed it for future decision-making/action. Still very worth it IMO.

If you look at their patterns, they rarely consider comments in less it meets their agenda already. They should be thanking each individual for coming, acknowledging what they are saying and discuss the issue at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the BOE members are naive. They have asked in every which way to slow down this process and see more data, transportation costs, etc. People have testified and it has been compelling. It is super obvious Niki Hazel Porter and the DCCAPS woman (Franklin?) were told what to pull together by the superintendent and the three of them are steam rolling forward with thumbs in their ears despite very serious feedback from thoughtful stake holders and others. I think Laura and Julie are very concerned.

Well, if the majority of the Board feels this way they can and should slow it down and make it clear to Central Office they will refuse to vote to approve the plan in December because they want them to slow it down a year to allow time for real community feedback (including from principals and teachers, which they're only starting now) and real study of the logistics, transportation, staffing, etc, etc.

I heard some rumor that Yang is talking about how the Board doesn't have authority over this and that's total BS. It may not be their role to get into the details of actual program implementation at a given school, but big questions like "Should we get rid of all consortia and countywide programs and instead launch dozens of new regional programs all at once, with the corresponding budgetary and academic implications?" is absolutely under their purview and they need to take responsibility for that.

What you heard is not rumor. I shared this part of her email response to me on some other forum (I forgot if I shared that here, but I did at least mentioned her response in this forum). I think BOE members do not have a clear understanding what they should and should not do.

I agree that the BOE does not have a clear understanding of their role.

They are claiming to be passive and unable to jump into the programs study because they aren't voting on it in the way that they are with the Boundary Study. But the BOE's one employee is Dr. Taylor and they write his performance review. The way that Taylor handles this program study will directly impact his performance review. So if Taylor steers the program study in a way that goes against what the board wants, it's reasonable that they can exert pressure on him by reflecting their dissatisfaction with his performance formally and in writing.

But aside from that, just using the Bully Pulpit that they has as board members to say that they disagree with the program study in public, in board meetings, is also valuable and something they absolutely have the power to do as board members.

I'm confused- PP at 10:58 makes it sound like they are voting on it, in December? Is that not the case, or is it a different kind of vote?