Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

They should be asking better questions, you're right. With better follow-ups that don't simply accept the sometimes disingenuous/misleading answers that certain members of MCPS higher leadership clearly are intent to give when a question touches on a subject they don't want publicly understood.

More questions would require Julie Yang to allow them. Questioning her judgment...or her priorities.

With furloughs, RIFs, and economic uncertainty, this is not a good time for MCPS to try to bypass the public with a regional model that is likely to be a money pit, especially if the plan is to be enacted equitably.

A *thorough* staff, transportation, and cost analysis needs to first be presented to see what the financial ask would be. To approve a plan without knowing the likely cost is fiscally irresponsible.

In addition, there should be multiple rounds of proposals so all affected communities and stakeholders can be given the opportunity to have a meaningful voice and influence.

Without this careful process, the proposed regional model is vulnerable to undue influence by special interest groups not reflective of the county. The timeline should be extended in order for MCPS to put together a fully fleshed out proposal for us all to consider.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

Kids catch buses to their home schools at that hour and the dcc. Probably earlier. If you are going from the dcc to Whitman, it could easily be two hours with stops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the 6 region model basically expanding the DCC so all students in the county get access to a variety of programs? If this is the case, why would the DCC be against it?

Personally I feel that we need to stop the choice and kids just go to their neighborhood schools. If we go with 6 regions, there should be 1 test in program only for students whose needs can’t be met in their home school- no interest based programs.

No they are getting rid of the DCC (and NEC). The only way not to go to your home school will be through a program — there won’t be general school choice (where you. Can try to lottery into a school without going through a program). Thatbis why the DCC opposes it.

What percentage of DCC attended at different school that was not part of a magnet/special program...just I prefer A to B. And were several schools crowded enough that noone got spots?

Yeah I’m curious if numbers have ever been published for that. Anecdotally, it seems like essentially no one lotteries into Blair outside of the application programs.

They do but it’s very hard as no one is going to leave Blair, for Kennedy or a few other schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

If your kid needs a class now in the DCC transportation is your responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the 6 region model basically expanding the DCC so all students in the county get access to a variety of programs? If this is the case, why would the DCC be against it?

Personally I feel that we need to stop the choice and kids just go to their neighborhood schools. If we go with 6 regions, there should be 1 test in program only for students whose needs can’t be met in their home school- no interest based programs.

No they are getting rid of the DCC (and NEC). The only way not to go to your home school will be through a program — there won’t be general school choice (where you. Can try to lottery into a school without going through a program). Thatbis why the DCC opposes it.

What percentage of DCC attended at different school that was not part of a magnet/special program...just I prefer A to B. And were several schools crowded enough that noone got spots?

Yeah I’m curious if numbers have ever been published for that. Anecdotally, it seems like essentially no one lotteries into Blair outside of the application programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t the 6 region model basically expanding the DCC so all students in the county get access to a variety of programs? If this is the case, why would the DCC be against it?

Personally I feel that we need to stop the choice and kids just go to their neighborhood schools. If we go with 6 regions, there should be 1 test in program only for students whose needs can’t be met in their home school- no interest based programs.

No they are getting rid of the DCC (and NEC). The only way not to go to your home school will be through a program — there won’t be general school choice (where you. Can try to lottery into a school without going through a program). Thatbis why the DCC opposes it.

What percentage of DCC attended at different school that was not part of a magnet/special program...just I prefer A to B. And were several schools crowded enough that noone got spots?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that, but I agree that there should be clarification and that the board should be asking more and better questions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Because this was what Taylor did in his previous school district. If they indeed decide to provide home to local HSs transportation and then transfer to other HSs in their region, the cost will blow up the ceiling and students need to catch bus like what, 6:30 am?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Why do you say that is the assumption?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Their current transportation model assumes only available between HSs within the same region, so they assume parents need to provide transportation to local HSs. This was pointed out in one testimony in the last BOE meeting and discussed on this platform. I don’t think MCPS has provided any clarification nor did BOE ask any question about the inequity associated with the future transportation model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Maybe in the future they drop the bomb they are not providing transportation but as of right now they are presenting this as offering transportation and that is going to be a big cost of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?

Yes. But they talk equity without doing it all the time.

Anonymous wrote:Essie McGuire as much as said they are tied together (boundary assessment and program reassignment). And since they have to have the boundary assessment, CO will ram the program reassignment through with it

They never were before and it makes zero sense to move to regions when you don’t even know how the boundary changes are going to play out. That’s a huge, huge problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. In this best chance hypothetical situation where County Council does not provide full MCPS funding due to disagreement with the 6 region model, I see MCPS taking the money and then responding in their own way. TT + gang feel very strongly about the 6 region model, so I would guess that they apply the funding gap elsewhere to... take your pick. Eliminate SpEd paraeducators? Increase class sizes? Maybe a nominal line item from Central Office budget? But they'll keep their precious 6 region model.

They got more money for Sped teachers. They'd probably cut that first. Reality is this just puts kids at their home schools with a few exceptions going to other schools. They could just require parents to provide transportation.

Isn’t parent providing transportation a super inequitable thing?