Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
Yes, meeting bare minimum eligibility will get you into the proposed fake SMCS and IB.
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why they are so dead set on breaking everything about the DCC while claiming they are trying to replicate its successes.
Anonymous wrote: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:I don't understand why they are so dead set on breaking everything about the DCC while claiming they are trying to replicate its successes.
Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of a scarcity model and expanding access to programs seems like a good goal if we are going to have programs at all.
Anonymous wrote:MCPS says this about central stop transportation. There are apparently no guarantees of a stop within walking distance. How is this possibly equitable? The programs will only be for kids whose parents can drive them to a central stop?
"According to MCPS Regulation EEA-RA, Student
Transportation, Section II.B.2, “Centralized bus
service, defined as transportation from a central
location such as a neighborhood elementary
school, to the program site, may be provided to
students attending specific programs as identi-
fied in the MCPS Options (Guide to Countywide
Programs) booklet, in accordance with Board
action, attendance areas, transportation services,
and funding levels. Parents/guardians are respon-
sible for students’ transportation to and from
centralized bus stops, whether or not there is an
appropriate walking route.” Central stops are
placed at MCPS schools and other government
facilities. Not all students will have a bus stop
within walking distance of their home."
Anonymous wrote: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: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.