The challenges are many:
How many students will participate?
How will they both find trained teachers for the new programs, and, fund those teachers salaries?
How will they fund all the additional busses and bus drivers taking all the students to the new programs?
How much congestion will this add to our already congested roads?

I'm sure there's more, but that's what comes to mind right now

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

I doubt that we are ever going to have the same set of courses in each HS. If there are only 3 students wanting to take Physics C then it's not going to happen.

What I think that in each regional magnets, they should have the same set of classes due to enough kids wanting to take them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

I have heard that as well but am not sure if it refers to 1) having a same set of classes offered (note: not necessarily taught), 2) non-magnet test-in programs where each region has the same programs, 3) magnets only available to kids in the region (versus the county).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

I thought entire idea was about offering same or at least similar programs in each region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be a uniform offering for each region.

It doesn’t sound like there will be the same programs in all regions (eg see the other threads on the regions).

There’s still a separate question as to offering a course means actually teaching a course. This is a problem now with some kids wanting to take a course and it being potentially listed but then not taught.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they're using one enrollment model when looking the boundary study options, and are potentially changing the enrollment model with regional programming, doesn't that potentially change enrollment patterns and projections in the boundary study? Or am I missing something?

I had the same question. Boundary study can't be done in isolation.

Some basic numbers should be made available for enrollment in these programs. That way capacity utilization can be done properly otherwise we may end up with lopsided outcomes due to mixing both without using data.

Yah, for example if we have something like this,

Science, Math, and Technology - Woodward
Performing Art - Woodward

Information Technology, Engineering, & Robotics - Wheaton
Health and Human Services - Wheaton

Global Humanities and Leadership - WJ
Finance, Entrepreneurship, and Marketing - WJ


Education and Public Service - Churchill

Here Churchill will have only one program other schools will have 2. Boundary and capacity utilization can be done better if we have enrollment numbers for programs in various schools.

Anonymous wrote:If they're using one enrollment model when looking the boundary study options, and are potentially changing the enrollment model with regional programming, doesn't that potentially change enrollment patterns and projections in the boundary study? Or am I missing something?

I had the same question. Boundary study can't be done in isolation.

Some basic numbers should be made available for enrollment in these programs. That way capacity utilization can be done properly otherwise we may end up with lopsided outcomes due to mixing both without using data.

If they're using one enrollment model when looking the boundary study options, and are potentially changing the enrollment model with regional programming, doesn't that potentially change enrollment patterns and projections in the boundary study? Or am I missing something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

If we have standardized programs in each region then it will be an uniform offering for each region.

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

If all regions have the same programs then it won't make any difference. You could be in one region or antoher, it will be same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

There appear to be different options for magnets or whatever we are calling them.

Also I’m not entirely clear if we are still in the world where a school would “offer” a class but wouldn’t necessarily teach the class (if subscription was low, for example). That would seem to imply something like the consortia model where you try to get into another school to take the relevant class.

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

Yes. And to get even more complex, this year’s rising 8th graders will theoretically be able to apply to the current existing programs, or choose to remain at home school for 9th. Regional programs will not be available yet so they can’t apply to them. Then in 10th, they’d potentially have to move to their new zoned school after a year of playing on sports teams, joining clubs and bands and possibly starting coursework like PLTW or a foreign language that isn’t offered at their new zoned school, or remain in an application program that is being phased out after them, and to which transportation might be reduced since resources will be diverted to all the bussing the regional model will create. But yes, you don’t even know what your region is because the map the program study is using to create the regions is based on the old/current high school boundaries and not the new ones that are yet to be determined.

Anonymous wrote:Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

I'm not following. Isn't the idea that each of the regions will have the same offerings? In which case it doesn't matter which region you end up in?

Are there cases where people would be in one region under one boundary option but other region for another?

If so how that would seem to complicate how to advocate for your child’s needs.

This is a mess.

MCPS should put Science, Math, and Technology program in Woodward.

Keept Information Technology, Engineering, & Robotics in Wheaton.

2 weakest schools in region can then have STEM programs. Then distribute other programs.