Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

Julie Yang and Karla Silvestre are running, respectively, for district 1 and at-large seats on the county council. If they vote for this catastrophically bad regional plan, please vote for someone else for their county council seats. They do not deserve our support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

Jeannie_H_Franklin@mcpsmd.org
Peter_M_Ostrander@mcpsmd.org

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

Jeannie_H_Franklin@mcpsmd.org
Peter_M_Ostrander@mcpsmd.org

Don't forget Niki Porter, who is their lead, tasked with setting the direction for and making decisions about the options that get raised to Taylor. This is like Adnan Mamoon for boundaries -- Andrea Swiatocha has the role similar to Jeannie as the lackey handling all the detail. Unfortunately, those who know have been dreading this kind of thing ever since she was elevated to CAO.

That was one of Taylor's real missteps as he relied in his appointments too heavily on preserving institutional knowledge, choosing from those steeped in the mire that MCPS had become. Over the years of her varying leadership roles, Porter (prior surname Hazel) has been a main driver of shifting support/resources/focus away from higher-end academic opportunities -- a terribly short-sighted approach to equity, and one that ultimately fails its own intended beneficiaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

Julie Yang and Karla Silvestre are running, respectively, for district 1 and at-large seats on the county council. If they vote for this catastrophically bad regional plan, please vote for someone else for their county council seats. They do not deserve our support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Let’s email Jeannie Franklin or Peter Ostrander and ask. It would be fun for them to walk in on Monday to an inbox full of questions!

Jeannie_H_Franklin@mcpsmd.org
Peter_M_Ostrander@mcpsmd.org

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing seems so rushed and badly planned. It is astounding to me that the central office, board and city council are all okay with this. It’s so disheartening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

This says that interest-based programs are lottery based. It does not reference criteria-based programs as utilizing a lottery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has been lying since October.
The Program Deign Team (who MCPS "deigns" to share their designs to) was notified that the criteria programs will be lottery based.

The non-lottery version, announced after parent resistance in October, was a lie to get parents off MCPS's back

Equity and Opportunity in MCPS are cancelled.

Ironically, MCPS middle schoolers are studying Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" this week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has been lying since October.
The Program Deign Team (who MCPS "deigns" to share their designs to) was notified that the criteria programs will be lottery based.

The non-lottery version, announced after parent resistance in October, was a lie to get parents off MCPS's back

Equity and Opportunity in MCPS are cancelled.

Ironically, MCPS middle scholers are studying Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" this week.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.