Reply to Parents of current 7th graders - what do you think about the 6 regional magnets

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Parents of current 7th graders - what do you think about the 6 regional magnets"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.
[/quote]

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?[/quote]

[b]Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.[/quote][/b]

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM  program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".[/quote]

[b]How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.[/b]

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).[/quote]

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.[/quote]

[b]What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.[/b]
[/quote]

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.[/quote]

[b]So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?[/quote][/b]

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources   -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means 
[/quote]

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.[/quote]

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process. [/quote]

DP here. I have to say MCPS occasionally "listens" to what they want to listen and make small but more disastrous refinement. I gave a feedback in one of the Oct. virtual meeting that Region 2 with Wheaton HS was the only region that had real engineering program/curriculum and anyone in that region can apply to. The sample STEM curriculum shared back then only contained two SMCS entry-level engineering courses. Guess what happened? In November, they added interest-based engineering programs to every region, removed the two SMCS entry-level engineering courses, and maintained the exact same budget estimate. [b]They keep on adding or tweaking programs without considering any logistics/staff/transportation/student cohort/etc associated with it.[/b][/quote]

To the pro-MCPS poster: This. You're patting yourself on the back with this is so-called iterative approach, yet this means this process and the details will not be ready for who knows how long. Did it occur to you that this same very proposal is going on a PR tour, being built into the boundary studies, and the BOE VOTES on this come March 2026. Where else in the real world does a half-baked idea become reality without having at least looked at all the details - staffing, bussing, cost, etc. But for you, it's ok that all of this will be unknown. Bravo. Who cares about 7th graders and younger?

[/quote]

MCPS has indicated that they have looked at those factors and are ready to go. Perhaps they are only sharing details once they know for sure?

Anyway, last month they shared a preliminary plan for both transportation and cost. I’ve shared it repeatedly on here, but still find that I’m responding to the same talking points and it’s making MCPS look better, imo.[/quote]

I’ve also shared on this board that the transportation cost estimates in November updates still followed the HS-HS central stop model, which is 1/4-1/6 of the realist costs of DCC or RMIB bus routes. How does this central stop model take equity access into the design at all? [/quote]

What model do you think is better and why?[/quote]

DCC is ideal which stops at neighborhood, but minimal RMIB bus model which at least stops at every school, community center and library. This is the minimal for equitable access. [/quote]

RMIB buses don't currently stop at every school, community center, and library. My kid didn't apply for that reason -- it would be a pain for us to get to without bus service.[/quote]

Check out my post above. You can call transportation office for a stop nearby if they do not arrange (usually they do arrange before you ask). Whoever told you the route is fixed as is was giving you misinformation - signed by a past RMIB parent.[/quote]

This may have been true in the past but is not true currently. [/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