Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

I almost feel secondhand embarrassment for them. Like this is really embarrassing in the way that a colleague totally bombing a presentation is, or Biden's debate, or an awful karaoke performance. Except that it also could affect my kid's future.

Gaslighting at its finest.

It's the MCPS way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Oh, maybe they mean "admissions criteria" will stay the same, in the sense of the bare minimum eligibility? Like Algebra 1 in 8th for Blair or 1 year of foreign language in middle school for RMIB?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

I almost feel secondhand embarrassment for them. Like this is really embarrassing in the way that a colleague totally bombing a presentation is, or Biden's debate, or an awful karaoke performance. Except that it also could affect my kid's future.

Yeah I do not envy the staffers being forced to sell this, not one bit. We don't know if any of them are pushing back internally, but it does not sound like the decision-makers are at all receptive to feedback or criticism.

I would love for them to go into detail on the inequities in MCPS. Not just the supposed "inequities" that they are using to justify eliminating the consortia, but all the inequities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

I almost feel secondhand embarrassment for them. Like this is really embarrassing in the way that a colleague totally bombing a presentation is, or Biden's debate, or an awful karaoke performance. Except that it also could affect my kid's future.

Gaslighting at its finest.

Anonymous wrote:No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

They say this but honestly I don't believe it since it contradicts other things they've said:

" No. Excellence and equity go hand in hand. Admission criteria, curriculum standards, and accountability measures will remain in place. Expansion means more qualified students gain access—not lowering expectations."

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

MCPS is assuming that their proposed regions model will improve access to high-demand programs. Parents and teachers see that MCPS's proposed solution is inequitable and will make access worse. The community therefore wants to be actively involved in the development of the proposed model to ensure programming access is meaningfully and equitably expanded for all students.

A full picture of school assignments and program access does not need to be provided at the same time as the boundary study. The community can comprehend what the new school assignments will be without having to know what proposed region the school might be in. Assigning possible regions should be transparently done with the community's active involvement and support. Boundaries should be figured out before any regions are assigned.

Anonymous wrote:They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

I almost feel secondhand embarrassment for them. Like this is really embarrassing in the way that a colleague totally bombing a presentation is, or Biden's debate, or an awful karaoke performance. Except that it also could affect my kid's future.

They are really digging in and refusing to meaningfully address questions and concerns. This is really frustration, infuriating and most of all confusing. Why are they insisting on doing this in the most reckless way possible?

No words on the lottery in criteria based programs?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

Quick glance - Biggest red flag from the FAQ: 30-60 seats per grade level for "most" programs... I guess that partially answers the transportation question. These programs are going to be really small.

Actually they won't once there's 4 grade levels to transport. At the maximum end of this number, that's 240 kids to transport. That requires multiple buses.

Wow.

Quick glance - Biggest red flag from the FAQ: 30-60 seats per grade level for "most" programs... I guess that partially answers the transportation question. These programs are going to be really small.

Can somebody please explain to CO what the word "equity" means?

Anonymous wrote:New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."

The questions in the FAQ aren't the ones the community has been asking. And some of the ones that they have been asking are answered with no evidence to back them up.

New slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PXEGp4xDGcnFZQ3aVA3TNF191YNU2tc3TgaWs2PM9rE/edit?slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165#slide=id.g39ec8c68b94_2_165 15 minutes of questions planned in small groups, "feedback" collected on post it notes

New FAQ: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sYH8G9mVKZI0Bkm_-ZXoSszwRGnrsemE_ksF7DZR4fs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Answer to why they are rushing the program changes now: "The changes are happening now to address historical inequities and a scarcity model that limits access to high-demand programs for many students. The program analysis is being done concurrently with the boundary study (final decision expected March 2026) to provide families with a full picture of school assignments and program access at the same time."