Will 6 Region Model Pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 I would be much happier with just getting rid of the DCC and countywide magnets that serve tiny numbers of kids, and having diverse offerings including advanced coursework at every school. All these proposed programs will just take away resources for kids not lucky enough to get into their preferred program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 I would be much happier with just getting rid of the DCC and countywide magnets that serve tiny numbers of kids, and having diverse offerings including advanced coursework at every school. All these proposed programs will just take away resources for kids not lucky enough to get into their preferred program.

Yes, completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

[Anonymous]

Whatever the proposed plan is, there should be multiple opportunities for community engagement and two-way feedback before it is approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

The Council has no role in approving or rejecting the plan. They can request information about it. They also approve a dollar amount for MCPS but MCPS decides how to use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

The Council has no role in approving or rejecting the plan. They can request information about it. They also approve a dollar amount for MCPS but MCPS decides how to use it.

Yes, that’s what I meant—approve funding for the plan. That is why MCPS is approaching council—they want money for their proposed plan. Half of their budget already goes to MCPS— council does not have to increase the dollar amount per MCPS’s request.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

The Council has no role in approving or rejecting the plan. They can request information about it. They also approve a dollar amount for MCPS but MCPS decides how to use it.

Yes, that’s what I meant—approve funding for the plan. That is why MCPS is approaching council—they want money for their proposed plan. Half of their budget already goes to MCPS— council does not have to increase the dollar amount per MCPS’s request.

This is true, but MCPS will still have leeway to decide what to cut from their budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

The Council has no role in approving or rejecting the plan. They can request information about it. They also approve a dollar amount for MCPS but MCPS decides how to use it.

Yes, that’s what I meant—approve funding for the plan. That is why MCPS is approaching council—they want money for their proposed plan. Half of their budget already goes to MCPS— council does not have to increase the dollar amount per MCPS’s request.

This is true, but MCPS will still have leeway to decide what to cut from their budget.

They can try, but they will fail miserably trying to execute their regional model in an equitable way without increased funding. The blame for the hot mess will be on BOE and MCPS. It will be a bunch of regions with programs along the lines of Watkins Mill’s IB, weakened formerly renown magnets; bussing, staffing, and cost problems, increased inequity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

The Council has no role in approving or rejecting the plan. They can request information about it. They also approve a dollar amount for MCPS but MCPS decides how to use it.

Yes, that’s what I meant—approve funding for the plan. That is why MCPS is approaching council—they want money for their proposed plan. Half of their budget already goes to MCPS— council does not have to increase the dollar amount per MCPS’s request.

This is true, but MCPS will still have leeway to decide what to cut from their budget.

They can try, but they will fail miserably trying to execute their regional model in an equitable way without increased funding. The blame for the hot mess will be on BOE and MCPS. It will be a bunch of regions with programs along the lines of Watkins Mill’s IB, weakened formerly renown magnets; bussing, staffing, and cost problems, increased inequity.

Exactly and then they will blame the Council like they always do.

[Anonymous]

We (parents) need to be all over the Board of Education about separating the 2 (boundaries and programs), and then work to scuttle the 6 region program model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

That’s what I mean. Let’s first make sure we have $ for textbooks for regular math and history classes in all grades before trying to stand up the educators, coordinators, and materials for 6 each of 15 special programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Completely agree with you. But while MCPS may not care how much it costs, council cannot approve the proposed plan if it is fiscally untenable. Council should not approve a poorly thought-out plan that worsens inequity and is likely to be a money pit.

The Council has no role in approving or rejecting the plan. They can request information about it. They also approve a dollar amount for MCPS but MCPS decides how to use it.

Yes, that’s what I meant—approve funding for the plan. That is why MCPS is approaching council—they want money for their proposed plan. Half of their budget already goes to MCPS— council does not have to increase the dollar amount per MCPS’s request.

This is true, but MCPS will still have leeway to decide what to cut from their budget.

They can try, but they will fail miserably trying to execute their regional model in an equitable way without increased funding. The blame for the hot mess will be on BOE and MCPS. It will be a bunch of regions with programs along the lines of Watkins Mill’s IB, weakened formerly renown magnets; bussing, staffing, and cost problems, increased inequity.

Exactly and then they will blame the Council like they always do.

And we as taxpayer will pay for all ultimately. No matter who should be blamed, the ultimate punishment always precipitates down to us taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely agree with PPs above. When so many classes don’t have textbooks, when we don’t have advanced English until 11th grade, when reading scores are falling, now’s not the time to get fancy.

The six programs will probably end up costing more. So, there's not going to be some pile of cash for MCPS to spend on textbooks.

MCPS is supposed to meet the needs of all students, not just those with bad test scores.

That’s what I mean. Let’s first make sure we have $ for textbooks for regular math and history classes in all grades before trying to stand up the educators, coordinators, and materials for 6 each of 15 special programs.

I’d be supportive of ending all of the programs and focusing on just getting basics in all schools.

We’re not at one of the higher FARMS schools but I can guess that the biggest issues at those schools are hardly even discussed on this board (scores, truancy, etc).