CTE is part of equity, so I don't understand PP's point.

It’s because of Maryland Blueprint deadlines. MCPS needs to get 45% of kids getting CTE-aligned certifications by 2030-31. Most of the new programs are CTE-aligned.

I don’t know why they don’t just say that instead of pretending this is about equity. They don’t care if all the programs in all the regions are any good, they just need the numbers.

With all these program, how do they run buses? If it is like current magnet bus system, some kids without a ride to the central stops won't apply to the program. If it is like DCC buses (I don't live in DCC so not sure but), multiple buses coming to each stop?

Our best shot is through the county council. If they say they won't fund the changes, then the BOE might pay attention and consider doing its job.

MCPS can’t even handle what they currently do. They are incompetent.

The programs and the boundaries will shuffle teachers as well as students. Like you mentioned, students would potentially be chosen by lottery and then sign up for classes within a program and then teachers would be assigned to teach those courses. However, MCPS gives overal school teacher allocations to principals befofe then. So it will be a long spring and summer of principals basically playing a shell game to move teachers around and see how to offer it all without enough staff. Every secondary principal will have to act like the shady ones currently do.

Then, there is the transportation piece. A girl just died and we trust MCPS to bus old and new kids at the same time?

Lastly, these programs cost MORE than just changing the boundaries and making sure each school has the staffing and resources needed for basic instruction (included the advanced track).

Those of us asking MCPS to slow down aren’t asking for these hyper specialized programs MCPS claims they will offer. We just want basic electives and AP classes available at all schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

It’s this

If the board likes the recommended boundaries but doesn't like the program analysis plan, they can put forward an alternative that excludes it.

You must not watch that many BOE meetings. They will rubber stamp whatever MCPS gives them.

They've never voted on anything like this before.

All the more reason- it's too complex for the BOE to go rogue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

It’s this

If the board likes the recommended boundaries but doesn't like the program analysis plan, they can put forward an alternative that excludes it.

You must not watch that many BOE meetings. They will rubber stamp whatever MCPS gives them.

They've never voted on anything like this before.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

It’s this

If the board likes the recommended boundaries but doesn't like the program analysis plan, they can put forward an alternative that excludes it.

You must not watch that many BOE meetings. They will rubber stamp whatever MCPS gives them.

They are probably leaning toward the plans that involve further bussing and have higher bussing costs. Cutting out the programs and magnets will free up bussing resources.

Anonymous wrote:I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

Yup

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

It’s this

If the board likes the recommended boundaries but doesn't like the program analysis plan, they can put forward an alternative that excludes it.

Anonymous wrote:I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

It’s this

I would think they could delay the programs until after the new schools open because the boundary changes will be phased in across a few years before everyone has been reassigned.

I think they know if they slow down the program analysis it will lost momentum and won’t pass. They know the boundaries must pass because 2 new schools need to open.

It seems like there is increasing pressure on MCPS to slow down a year-- from County Council today, the MCCPTA resolution, and others-- but MCPS just keeps saying "we can't, it has to be at the same time as the boundary changes." I'm trying to figure out what they mean by that and if it holds any water, or if we can debunk it to strengthen the argument that they shouldn't be rushing this through this year.

I get that in theory programs affect utilization which affects boundaries. But 1) if all schools have a couple programs, then in theory the transfers should more or less cancel eachother out and utilization will be pretty close to the same either way, and 2) to the extent that the reality is likely to be significantly different than that (due to some programs being more popular than others and some schools sending more kids to certain programs than others) there is basically no way to figure that out until kids start applying to and accepting spots in programs anyway, so launching it at the same time as the boundary changes rather than a year later doesn't bring any added value (it probably should have been launched a year *before* the boundary changes if they really wanted it to inform utilization.) Am I missing something or does that seem right to others too?