Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some strong hints there that County Council may be reluctant to fund budget increases for this if they don't think it's being done well (and they clearly, and I think correctly, don't think it's being done well so far.) Do we think MCPS leadership will care about that at all?

They probably think it's empty threats and are probably mostly right about that

Even if this is approved and funded, there's no way it will be in place in 2 years. What will happen is that they won't be able to hire the teachers for the 4 additional STEM magnets (and perhaps other programs, but I think most agree that's the hardest one to staff), and so they'll have to continue to have Blair and Poolesville open to applications from the same regions they have now. And then someone will say, "hmm, should we maybe have tried to build this incrementally one program at a time?"

Even slow-down is really happening, I won’t start to buy in until they provide:
1. Existing program re-evaluation report, containing an in-depth evaluation of what make the successful program successful, lesson learned from not successful programs

2. Staffing analysis with acquisition, training and retaining plans and associate cost lookout

3. Transportation analysis. How do they deal with bus time for one-transfer


3.

It is not realistic to implement so many big changes (6 regions, each with 6 core programs; 2 new high schools are up and running; running the grandfathered programs concurrently with the regional programs) in such a short time frame (they want to start signing students up NEXT FALL), given MCPS is still collecting data, does not have a staff or cost analysis, stakeholders have not been adequately engaged, and given the fiscal picture (the economy is shaky and our county is dependent on federal workers who are facing job loss). It is improbable that a fully fleshed out plan will be ready in December for BOE approval.

This enormous change is going to cost a lot of $$$$$$$ that the county does not have, if equity is the priority. Field trips need to be equitably executed. Admissions to the programs needs to be transparent. Specialty teaching positions are already difficult to staff as it is, not to mention multiplying this by six new regions, and the devil is in the details--planning and logistics. It is not probable that all programs in all six regions will be fully staffed and ready to go in 2027 in an equitable manner.

Cluster assignments should have a robust amount of community engagement. The region assignments seem very random and unfair. MCPS only held focus groups for students from Damascus, Gaithersburg, Watkins Mill, Blake, Kennedy, Springbrook, and Richard Montgomery, which explains a lot. What about opinions from students from the 18 other high schools? And how were these students selected?

Moreover, the regional model is unlikely to improve the schools, such as Kennedy HS, which is 60% under capacity, that need the most help.

Jawando confirmed that all of the variables listed above need BOE approval.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah push the timeline back for couple years is better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Yeah. I get the argument that making the boundary changes is hard if the current state of magnets/regional programs is different than the future state, so the numbers will change as far as sending/receiving. But that doesn't make it possible for to do what they're trying to do in a 1-2 year time period just because they want it.

Is the issue of lining up the timeline with the boundary study just because of Poolesville? Because everywhere else, the difference in building utilization before and after the program changes would be a couple hundred kids tops, probably less in most cases (so maybe only 50 kids or so different in the first year if this gets pushed back a year.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

What are the flawed foundations that she was referring to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

DP - they seem wedded to doing this at the same time as the boundary study, because of some flawed “foundations” metaphor that Essie McGuire keeps repeating.

They need to implement the boundary changes, wait a year or two to see how those shake out, and THEN begin the process of planning for regional programs. Not concurrently. To carry the foundations metaphor, they’re mixing novel ingredients they aren’t sure will combine to create a strong foundation. They need to take the time to determine what will make the strongest foundation.

Anonymous wrote:There were some strong hints there that County Council may be reluctant to fund budget increases for this if they don't think it's being done well (and they clearly, and I think correctly, don't think it's being done well so far.) Do we think MCPS leadership will care about that at all?

They probably think it's empty threats and are probably mostly right about that

There were some strong hints there that County Council may be reluctant to fund budget increases for this if they don't think it's being done well (and they clearly, and I think correctly, don't think it's being done well so far.) Do we think MCPS leadership will care about that at all?

Anonymous wrote:This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Correct. I don't know how they thought they could set a deadline and timeline without those key assets in place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essie's point about WANTING the Boundary and Program models to line up is ideal, but in order to DO THAT, the investigative and planning work should have commenced MUCH sooner if that was the goal!

+1

I appreciated the Council members making clear how unrealistic they thought the timeline was.

It's an interesting dynamic with 2 of the BoE members running for Council - Yang and Silvestre? If they're not able to bring that kind of tough questioning -- and willingness to withhold approval -- I personally wouldn't vote to send them to County Council.

+1

This whole program development process has been botched from the start, as the council members pointed out in so many words. Staff development and curriculum analysis, and a transportation analysis should have been conducted initially - these are the major components and they have yet to take place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsLH90Gzv3k

I'm leaving to run some errands soon, but want to keep this post alive so people tuned in can share their thoughts.

First, kudos to parents, especially the ones in the front row. Your banners are strong and clearly visible from the screen.
Second, Laura Stuart is attending. At least she shows some care.

I just heard Mrs. Potter lying bluntly in front of the public that they "had been collecting community feedbacks since September", and "updating the plan according to community feedback".

She's a full-time volunteer. She has nothing but time.

And showing up to listen is one thing, taking action and speaking out is another. While she does lots of the former, I have yet to see her do the latter.

Well if you do not like Laura Stewart, then you are sadly disappointed in the entire school system. Laura works hard, she pays attention to schools typically ignored by central office, and she and Julie Yang are the two on the BOE that actually know what is going on.

I appreciate that she stood with the parents today at the council hearing. Where are the rest of the BOE??

You are absolutely right that I am disappointed in the school system. And Yang and Stewart, along with the rest of the board, have been utter disappointments.

Anonymous wrote:Essie's point about WANTING the Boundary and Program models to line up is ideal, but in order to DO THAT, the investigative and planning work should have commenced MUCH sooner if that was the goal!

+1

I appreciated the Council members making clear how unrealistic they thought the timeline was.

It's an interesting dynamic with 2 of the BoE members running for Council - Yang and Silvestre? If they're not able to bring that kind of tough questioning -- and willingness to withhold approval -- I personally wouldn't vote to send them to County Council.