Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do parents of kids at the innovative schools have the option to send them to a traditional school if they don't want the longer school year?

No. This is similar to the language immersion programs, which I think is a mistake on MCPS's part.

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this but at this point I can't believe anything posted on that website. It is a constant gripe. So much so that one begins to wonder if it is even real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised it’s taken this long for the parents at the innovative school year schools to complain. I assumed it was because those families generally don’t have as much income and influence. Who would want a school schedule like that?

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/calendar/FY2024/0953.23_2023-2024_INNOVATIVE_SchoolCalendar.pdf

People who want their young kids in school year-round instead of having 10 weeks of no school in the summer with the associated learning loss and child care responsibilities.

MCPS isn’t off for 10 weeks during the summer.

Anonymous wrote:I hate to say this but at this point I can't believe anything posted on that website. It is a constant gripe. So much so that one begins to wonder if it is even real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

I'm the PP and none of what I wrote was meant to be a defense of ISY. It was just a comment about why this felt different than some of the other untested stuff MCPS has thrown at parents. This model has worked in other places, so it's interesting to look at why it isn't working here.

MCPS is not using the model. Read what parents and teachers are saying before you jump to conclusions.

Where would a person see those comments? No one in this thread has identified themselves as a parent or teacher at one of the schools being discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

I'm the PP and none of what I wrote was meant to be a defense of ISY. It was just a comment about why this felt different than some of the other untested stuff MCPS has thrown at parents. This model has worked in other places, so it's interesting to look at why it isn't working here.

Just jumping in here as a NP to say that everything you have stated makes sense and I am not sure why the OP or PP is so defensive about it. You clearly have no dog in this fight and are simply pointing out that it works in other places so let's figure out why not here. Not sure why PP wants it gone so badly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

I'm the PP and none of what I wrote was meant to be a defense of ISY. It was just a comment about why this felt different than some of the other untested stuff MCPS has thrown at parents. This model has worked in other places, so it's interesting to look at why it isn't working here.

MCPS is not using the model. Read what parents and teachers are saying before you jump to conclusions.

Where would a person see those comments? No one in this thread has identified themselves as a parent or teacher at one of the schools being discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

I'm the PP and none of what I wrote was meant to be a defense of ISY. It was just a comment about why this felt different than some of the other untested stuff MCPS has thrown at parents. This model has worked in other places, so it's interesting to look at why it isn't working here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

I'm the PP and none of what I wrote was meant to be a defense of ISY. It was just a comment about why this felt different than some of the other untested stuff MCPS has thrown at parents. This model has worked in other places, so it's interesting to look at why it isn't working here.

MCPS is not using the model. Read what parents and teachers are saying before you jump to conclusions.

Anonymous wrote:Do parents of kids at the innovative schools have the option to send them to a traditional school if they don't want the longer school year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

I'm the PP and none of what I wrote was meant to be a defense of ISY. It was just a comment about why this felt different than some of the other untested stuff MCPS has thrown at parents. This model has worked in other places, so it's interesting to look at why it isn't working here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:another complaint from the county's complainer-in-chief

Roscoe Nix ES parents are not complainers. They are saddled with an impossible situation and want relief.

And it's not just the parents complaining. Staff have complained about it to the BOE.

It's time for MCPS to kill the innovative school year as yet another theoretical fantasy that is infeasible due to practical realities.

I'm not an educational policy expert (and I hope one weighs in) but ISY is not the most nonsensical or theoretical approach MCPS has ever tried. I agree with you about approaches like "honors for all" that have failed elsewhere, but year-round school has succeeded elsewhere and has a strong theoretical basis.

I've skimmed the report above, as well as the response from MCPS and the overall cover memo from Superintendent McKnight. All of them point to some common problems: staff retention and student attendance.

Staff recruitment retention is an issue in part because a lot of teachers are also parents. There's not much to be done about that, but MCPS has tried to ameliorate the recruitment issue by letting the ISY schools recruit earlier than the traditional calendar schools.

Student attendance is a real problem. According to the report, only 76 percent of Arcola and 79% of Roscoe Nix kids were there on the first day last year. The report also details ongoing attendance issues for the first 30 days of school. So, it could be that the ISY kids are doing about the same as the other kids because they simply aren't attending the ISY portion of the school year.

Honestly, from my layperson's view, the biggest issue here is that you have two schools out of a hundred-something doing a different schedule, which is hard on staff and on students.

You wrote all of that in an attempt to defend the idea of Innovative School Year, but really there's no defense. You proposed some potential reasons for why it failed (the schools they're piloting it in already had attendance issues even without ISY or that doing ISY when the rest of the system is traditional doesn't work), but none of those are reasons to continue with the ISY program. It is objectively not working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised it’s taken this long for the parents at the innovative school year schools to complain. I assumed it was because those families generally don’t have as much income and influence. Who would want a school schedule like that?

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/calendar/FY2024/0953.23_2023-2024_INNOVATIVE_SchoolCalendar.pdf

People who want their young kids in school year-round instead of having 10 weeks of no school in the summer with the associated learning loss and child care responsibilities.