Anonymous
10/22/2025 18:12
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well not MCPs so much as Whitman
"we have over 100 clubs"
well, not really. They register a lot of clubs and sometimes they never ever have a meeting.
Its fodder for applications.
Whose fault is that? I wouldn’t blame the school.
Of course you blame the school. Most clubs have a teacher sponsor and / or some kind of admin requirement.
Teachers probably do it for the stipends.
Some clubs, such as Model UN, have stipends. Most clubs do not have a contractual stipend. Principals have a little money they can use for stipends, but many of these clubs are just the teacher being nice and volunteering with nothing in return.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 14:08
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We will keep renowned successful countywide programs but just make them regional (Answer in FAQ #1: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/)
Now their latest FAQ removes SMCS but change it to "STEM Pathway" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQGbZGBPA6PPDW5Fq6UwKThPXpA-Vs44KJgUvC-t2M8/edit?tab=t.0):
"Both the current countywide magnet and consortia choice models would be phased out for incoming students starting with the Class of 2031 should the BOE approve the regional model proposal. However, the most sought-after programs (like the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program and STEM pathways) are intended to be preserved, and expanded into the six regional models. "
Honestly, I think this is an attempt to capture both SMCS and Wheaton Engineering in one phrase, not to suggest they are removing SMCS.
The new STEM curriculum example for Wootton HS in Region #4 doesn't contain a single Wheaton Engineering program course.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 13:56
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Whats truly disappointing is Taylor came in promising transparency, community engagement, etc....
Anonymous
10/21/2025 13:53
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:We will keep renowned successful countywide programs but just make them regional (Answer in FAQ #1: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/faqs/)
Now their latest FAQ removes SMCS but change it to "STEM Pathway" (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tQGbZGBPA6PPDW5Fq6UwKThPXpA-Vs44KJgUvC-t2M8/edit?tab=t.0):
"Both the current countywide magnet and consortia choice models would be phased out for incoming students starting with the Class of 2031 should the BOE approve the regional model proposal. However, the most sought-after programs (like the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Program and STEM pathways) are intended to be preserved, and expanded into the six regional models. "
Honestly, I think this is an attempt to capture both SMCS and Wheaton Engineering in one phrase, not to suggest they are removing SMCS.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 13:44
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well not MCPs so much as Whitman
"we have over 100 clubs"
well, not really. They register a lot of clubs and sometimes they never ever have a meeting.
Its fodder for applications.
Whose fault is that? I wouldn’t blame the school.
Of course you blame the school. Most clubs have a teacher sponsor and / or some kind of admin requirement.
Teachers probably do it for the stipends.
No only a limited set of county approved clubs get stipends
Anonymous
10/21/2025 13:06
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
Nope, sorry. The meetings with the community are not to gather feedback, they are to tell the community what has already been decided (hence being called "information sessions" rather than a title you would use if soliciting feedback, like hearing or listening session or, feedback opportunity, or heck, even just calling it a "meeting" would leave the door open to it being about collecting feedback, rather than calling it an information session which makes it abundantly clear that you should only come if you want them to explain their predetermined plans to you.). Likewise, their form is to gather questions to so they can provide answers, rather than to gather feedback so they can consider it in revising (again, it would be titled and structured differently if it were designed to gather feedback, rather than calling it the "Ask A Question" form.) And the initial survey was both very vague and also obviously not a method of soliciting feedback on their proposals since there were no proposals at that point.
And even if it were true that those all were actually methods of collecting feedback-- which, again, they're not-- it would still be a lie that they are interested in feedback and willing to incorporate it into their plans. If they wanted feedback and were open to it, they would have tried to collect it long before now.
You can not like there methods of feedback or even make the case that haven't done enough to get good feedback. I won't dispute that. But that doesn't mean they are lying when they say they have sought feedback. They did he survey, they have the site, you can attend the meetings, you can e-mail questions/thoughts to people, you can ask questions during the boundary study session (even though I think there should be similar session specifically for the program analysis) and they have a design team which includes community partners (of which they may need more).
The point is that they aren't telling a lie. They may need to do more and better, but that doesn't mean they are telling a lie.
I think you didn't read the post closely enough. Try again. I did not say that they are not communicating their plans to the community, which is what all your examples are describing (except the design team-- but I am on that and it is only "gathering feedback" in the sense that they occasionally ask us very narrow questions and otherwise generally ignore anything we say about anything else. And it has only met a couple of times over the last few months, with no additional meetings scheduled right now.) I said they are not seeking out feedback on their proposals and incorporating that feedback into revisions. Do you understand that difference?
Anonymous
10/21/2025 12:59
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
Nope, sorry. The meetings with the community are not to gather feedback, they are to tell the community what has already been decided (hence being called "information sessions" rather than a title you would use if soliciting feedback, like hearing or listening session or, feedback opportunity, or heck, even just calling it a "meeting" would leave the door open to it being about collecting feedback, rather than calling it an information session which makes it abundantly clear that you should only come if you want them to explain their predetermined plans to you.). Likewise, their form is to gather questions to so they can provide answers, rather than to gather feedback so they can consider it in revising (again, it would be titled and structured differently if it were designed to gather feedback, rather than calling it the "Ask A Question" form.) And the initial survey was both very vague and also obviously not a method of soliciting feedback on their proposals since there were no proposals at that point.
And even if it were true that those all were actually methods of collecting feedback-- which, again, they're not-- it would still be a lie that they are interested in feedback and willing to incorporate it into their plans. If they wanted feedback and were open to it, they would have tried to collect it long before now.
You can not like there methods of feedback or even make the case that haven't done enough to get good feedback. I won't dispute that. But that doesn't mean they are lying when they say they have sought feedback. They did he survey, they have the site, you can attend the meetings, you can e-mail questions/thoughts to people, you can ask questions during the boundary study session (even though I think there should be similar session specifically for the program analysis) and they have a design team which includes community partners (of which they may need more).
The point is that they aren't telling a lie. They may need to do more and better, but that doesn't mean they are telling a lie.
Specifically to the bolded part, if you haven't, you may find this article (from one of the design team members) interesting: https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/10/mcps-program-analysis-concerns/
There are other design team members reflecting similar experience on this forum and other social media. Central office doesn't give a sh*t to design team suggestions.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 12:55
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
Nope, sorry. The meetings with the community are not to gather feedback, they are to tell the community what has already been decided (hence being called "information sessions" rather than a title you would use if soliciting feedback, like hearing or listening session or, feedback opportunity, or heck, even just calling it a "meeting" would leave the door open to it being about collecting feedback, rather than calling it an information session which makes it abundantly clear that you should only come if you want them to explain their predetermined plans to you.). Likewise, their form is to gather questions to so they can provide answers, rather than to gather feedback so they can consider it in revising (again, it would be titled and structured differently if it were designed to gather feedback, rather than calling it the "Ask A Question" form.) And the initial survey was both very vague and also obviously not a method of soliciting feedback on their proposals since there were no proposals at that point.
And even if it were true that those all were actually methods of collecting feedback-- which, again, they're not-- it would still be a lie that they are interested in feedback and willing to incorporate it into their plans. If they wanted feedback and were open to it, they would have tried to collect it long before now.
You can not like there methods of feedback or even make the case that haven't done enough to get good feedback. I won't dispute that. But that doesn't mean they are lying when they say they have sought feedback. They did he survey, they have the site, you can attend the meetings, you can e-mail questions/thoughts to people, you can ask questions during the boundary study session (even though I think there should be similar session specifically for the program analysis) and they have a design team which includes community partners (of which they may need more).
The point is that they aren't telling a lie. They may need to do more and better, but that doesn't mean they are telling a lie.
Asking for feedback on the boundary study is not the same as asking for feedback on the program analysis/regional program model. Not a single person/email/message from MCPS has asked me for feedback on their program analysis or regional program model. If they had I would have noted their program analysis is deeply flawed. What they did do is send out a vague survey last spring about what programs I think would be useful at secondary schools. That is not feedback, that is just collecting people's thoughts about a vague topic. Feedback means presenting an idea/document/model and asking people what they think about it.
From what I have heard at my PTA, NUMEROUS people have reached out to MCPS staff with questions and received absolutely nothing in response. They described MCPS as a "brick wall" on this topic. They are not interested in community feedback on their proposals, they have not solicited this feedback and are providing "information" that doesn't pass the most basic smell test.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 12:46
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
Nope, sorry. The meetings with the community are not to gather feedback, they are to tell the community what has already been decided (hence being called "information sessions" rather than a title you would use if soliciting feedback, like hearing or listening session or, feedback opportunity, or heck, even just calling it a "meeting" would leave the door open to it being about collecting feedback, rather than calling it an information session which makes it abundantly clear that you should only come if you want them to explain their predetermined plans to you.). Likewise, their form is to gather questions to so they can provide answers, rather than to gather feedback so they can consider it in revising (again, it would be titled and structured differently if it were designed to gather feedback, rather than calling it the "Ask A Question" form.) And the initial survey was both very vague and also obviously not a method of soliciting feedback on their proposals since there were no proposals at that point.
And even if it were true that those all were actually methods of collecting feedback-- which, again, they're not-- it would still be a lie that they are interested in feedback and willing to incorporate it into their plans. If they wanted feedback and were open to it, they would have tried to collect it long before now.
You can not like there methods of feedback or even make the case that haven't done enough to get good feedback. I won't dispute that. But that doesn't mean they are lying when they say they have sought feedback. They did he survey, they have the site, you can attend the meetings, you can e-mail questions/thoughts to people, you can ask questions during the boundary study session (even though I think there should be similar session specifically for the program analysis) and they have a design team which includes community partners (of which they may need more).
The point is that they aren't telling a lie. They may need to do more and better, but that doesn't mean they are telling a lie.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 12:28
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
Nope, sorry. The meetings with the community are not to gather feedback, they are to tell the community what has already been decided (hence being called "information sessions" rather than a title you would use if soliciting feedback, like hearing or listening session or, feedback opportunity, or heck, even just calling it a "meeting" would leave the door open to it being about collecting feedback, rather than calling it an information session which makes it abundantly clear that you should only come if you want them to explain their predetermined plans to you.). Likewise, their form is to gather questions to so they can provide answers, rather than to gather feedback so they can consider it in revising (again, it would be titled and structured differently if it were designed to gather feedback, rather than calling it the "Ask A Question" form.) And the initial survey was both very vague and also obviously not a method of soliciting feedback on their proposals since there were no proposals at that point.
And even if it were true that those all were actually methods of collecting feedback-- which, again, they're not-- it would still be a lie that they are interested in feedback and willing to incorporate it into their plans. If they wanted feedback and were open to it, they would have tried to collect it long before now.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 12:16
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
The survey back in March was extremely misleading (I highly suspect that's not because of poor design, but intentionally). They asked "what's your rank of programs that you'd like MCPS to add". They didn't say a single word about the regional model idea, and my interpretation (and the majority others) is one or two new special programs that MCPS would like to add according to popular votes. This is not only lying, but also manipulating.
Then you'd call a small orange button of "ask a question" embedded in a dark blue banner two-way communication? I've submitted several questions and raised concerns through that button. Never got any reply nor seeing my question is addressed on the FAQ or the BOE presentation slides.
So far they've been only holding 1-hour long information session with chat and QA functions turned off. And they call this community engagement. How distorted can words used by central office?
Anonymous
10/21/2025 11:50
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well not MCPs so much as Whitman
"we have over 100 clubs"
well, not really. They register a lot of clubs and sometimes they never ever have a meeting.
Its fodder for applications.
Whose fault is that? I wouldn’t blame the school.
Of course you blame the school. Most clubs have a teacher sponsor and / or some kind of admin requirement.
Teachers probably do it for the stipends.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 11:12
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
They have not solicited feedback on their program model. The survey was done before they released it. Having a button to ask questions is not soliciting feedback. They want to push out information, not receive information.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 11:10
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:We have been soliciting and incorporating community feedback on the program analysis/regional program model.
This is not untrue. The have a page for the Program Analysis where questions be submitted. They did a survey at the beginning to determine parent/student program interest. They have been having meetings with the community. It may not be the most expansive engagement and they may not have made all the changes the feedback suggested (like slowing down), but they are not actually lying here.
Anonymous
10/21/2025 11:06
Subject: List of recent MCPS lies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:well not MCPs so much as Whitman
"we have over 100 clubs"
well, not really. They register a lot of clubs and sometimes they never ever have a meeting.
Its fodder for applications.
Whose fault is that? I wouldn’t blame the school.
Of course you blame the school. Most clubs have a teacher sponsor and / or some kind of admin requirement.
Ok. But if students are. not participating actively why would the teacher continue to invest time? Also, why is the community not investing time?