Reply to Why did they linked the programming analysis to the boundary study?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Why did they linked the programming analysis to the boundary study? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I have yet to get an answer from anyone at MCPS on this so I’m posting this here—who in MCPS decided that the boundary study and program analysis needed to get linked up? Round 1 of the boundary study was all about the 4 factors. Only in round 2 of the boundary study did we find out that the 4 factors now really don’t matter, and the programming analysis is driving the options (aka the new proposed regions) because they are “inextricably linked” (as of what, last month?). Why?

The boundary study is highly complex, so who decided it was a good idea to layer in a total county-wide high school speciality curriculum revamp on top of that, while also trying to dismantle the NEC and DCC? The MCPS milk toast answers about equity are not a real explanation. Each of these alone has tremendous, significant changes and comes with massive implications for families, teachers, communities, and taxpayers. Each of these efforts should be done alone, done well, done over time, and done with adequate stakeholder engagement and input to do it right. The community is not on board, the broader PTA is not on board, and the teachers are not on board, yet they won’t delay the programming analysis. Why? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics