Anonymous
08/21/2025 07:46
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of this is too expensive and too complicated. They should start with the new boundaries for 2-3 years as they really study program options. Would love to see a cost comparisons to just having all secondary schools offer quality programming. Who says we have to have such specialized programs? This is a want, not a need. We can’t get blood from a rock. We have so many kids that still can’t read. This is all a waste of time for a small subset of students that will do well regardless of what program or building they are in.
With all the extra costs they could use that money to better help the schools. We need to vote the boe out.
The programs are not in the purview of the BOE, it’s Taylor and McPS. The BOE only gets final say in the boundaries. The BOE hs been asking critical questions of both studies. The first time Taylor let the Program team answer for themselves. Then, in July, Taylor chimed in like a used car salesman to smooth over when his team gave honest answers that the BoE clearly didn’t like.
LOL
Are you enjoying the Kool-Aid? The BOE runs the school system. It is all their purview.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 07:32
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to Slide 19, the advanced curriculum will end with 3 math classes (pre-calculus, calculus BC, statistics), 1 science class in each of chemistry, physics and biology, and one CSS class. This is even the bare minimum in many local HSs right now, and chopping off 1/2-2/3 of the current SMCS course offerings.
So yes, we will end up with criteria-based extremely mediocre STEM programs in all regions. Yeah, equity wins!
This is all the same but they are rearranging specialities stripping some schools even more than they already are. Then wasting a ton of money implementing this when there is no benefit.
Agree completely. Waste of time and scarce resources. And, they can't even fill current vacant teacher positions, where are they going to find enough math/science/foreign language and other specialty teachers to make this work? Rearranging for rearranging sake is not helpful
Anonymous
08/21/2025 07:16
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:All of this is too expensive and too complicated. They should start with the new boundaries for 2-3 years as they really study program options. Would love to see a cost comparisons to just having all secondary schools offer quality programming. Who says we have to have such specialized programs? This is a want, not a need. We can’t get blood from a rock. We have so many kids that still can’t read. This is all a waste of time for a small subset of students that will do well regardless of what program or building they are in.
With all the extra costs they could use that money to better help the schools. We need to vote the boe out.
The programs are not in the purview of the BOE, it’s Taylor and McPS. The BOE only gets final say in the boundaries. The BOE hs been asking critical questions of both studies. The first time Taylor let the Program team answer for themselves. Then, in July, Taylor chimed in like a used car salesman to smooth over when his team gave honest answers that the BoE clearly didn’t like.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 07:14
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do some regions have 2 IB schools? This seems redundant.
They don't. Einstein and Rockville will no longer have IB programs, according to slides 40-41.
Getting rid of Einstein IB is good but they are destroying the school and offering basically nothing to the kids. They will have even less which did not seem possible.
Where is all this money coming from? They closed a bunch of things a few years ago saying they did not have the funds. There is no point to any of this.
And how will this logistically play out? My kid will be an 11th grader in 2027 and planned to access those IB Science classes at Einstein since there are no APs.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 05:28
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Total 32 “to be developed” programs in one year with cost estimates of $160K. Good luck MCPS! President Trump would definitely love your high efficiency!
That sounds sketchy…
Anonymous
08/21/2025 04:56
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Slide 44 is a complete contradiction of what Taylor said in July. He said all students that start a program will get to finish their program in their current building. They’re all liars!
Write to him now
Show up to meetings
Anonymous
08/21/2025 04:54
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKQNLM604AC0/$file/Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT.pdf
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1288380.page
Anonymous
08/21/2025 01:57
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to Slide 19, the advanced curriculum will end with 3 math classes (pre-calculus, calculus BC, statistics), 1 science class in each of chemistry, physics and biology, and one CSS class. This is even the bare minimum in many local HSs right now, and chopping off 1/2-2/3 of the current SMCS course offerings.
So yes, we will end up with criteria-based extremely mediocre STEM programs in all regions. Yeah, equity wins!
It doesn’t say that. It’s limited to AP and IB courses. It doesn’t address non-AP courses like MV or Linear.
Nothing much will change but some schools will lose things important to them.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 01:51
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:According to Slide 19, the advanced curriculum will end with 3 math classes (pre-calculus, calculus BC, statistics), 1 science class in each of chemistry, physics and biology, and one CSS class. This is even the bare minimum in many local HSs right now, and chopping off 1/2-2/3 of the current SMCS course offerings.
So yes, we will end up with criteria-based extremely mediocre STEM programs in all regions. Yeah, equity wins!
It doesn’t say that. It’s limited to AP and IB courses. It doesn’t address non-AP courses like MV or Linear.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 01:26
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:The slide with about “short term pain” and “long term gain” is disgusting. Both of my kids get screwed with these changes. There is nothing good for either of them in MCPS with these plans.
I felt the same, the flippancy is just disgusting. This plan has made clear to me the extreme incompetency at work. Who's pet project is this? They should never work in education again.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 00:13
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:According to Slide 19, the advanced curriculum will end with 3 math classes (pre-calculus, calculus BC, statistics), 1 science class in each of chemistry, physics and biology, and one CSS class. This is even the bare minimum in many local HSs right now, and chopping off 1/2-2/3 of the current SMCS course offerings.
So yes, we will end up with criteria-based extremely mediocre STEM programs in all regions. Yeah, equity wins!
What are you talking about? That is the list of what they will make sure is at every high school. Has nothing to do with magnet curriculum.
There are some who only care about the magnet. Humor them. They are special.
Anonymous
08/21/2025 00:02
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:According to Slide 19, the advanced curriculum will end with 3 math classes (pre-calculus, calculus BC, statistics), 1 science class in each of chemistry, physics and biology, and one CSS class. This is even the bare minimum in many local HSs right now, and chopping off 1/2-2/3 of the current SMCS course offerings.
So yes, we will end up with criteria-based extremely mediocre STEM programs in all regions. Yeah, equity wins!
What are you talking about? That is the list of what they will make sure is at every high school. Has nothing to do with magnet curriculum.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 23:54
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:According to Slide 19, the advanced curriculum will end with 3 math classes (pre-calculus, calculus BC, statistics), 1 science class in each of chemistry, physics and biology, and one CSS class. This is even the bare minimum in many local HSs right now, and chopping off 1/2-2/3 of the current SMCS course offerings.
So yes, we will end up with criteria-based extremely mediocre STEM programs in all regions. Yeah, equity wins!
This is all the same but they are rearranging specialities stripping some schools even more than they already are. Then wasting a ton of money implementing this when there is no benefit.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 23:03
Subject: Re:New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:So they scrubbed any mention of balancing for demographics or socioeconomic status from the Boundary Study? I'm guessing because they're scared that'll attract attention from Trump?
While I didn't necessarily think it should have been the most important factor in the Boundary Analysis, I do think it should be considered as a factor, particularly for clusters that were extremely skewed.
That's still in the policy. It's just not on the slide.
Anonymous
08/20/2025 23:02
Subject: New presentation on program analysis and boundary study up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Slide 44 is a complete contradiction of what Taylor said in July. He said all students that start a program will get to finish their program in their current building. They’re all liars!
They said students in centrally managed programs would get to finish them. Slide 44 is about local programs... I think those are up to principals, right? So it would be hard for central office to guarantee them.
+1
Quite frankly they should pause the local problems during this implementation or include them as part of the evaluation, even if it's a separate category. They even note that some of these programs came out of trying to meet kids needs/interest, which is what these region program is supposed to be solving for.