Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They really need to start small on this and show some success. Don’t bus kids out of the walk zones for starters. Keep the flagship magnets and add some seats.

Do 1 maybe 2 regional magnets, IB the regions for Crown and Woodward. Leave it at that for starters. That will undoubtedly improve diversity. The primary goal is to fill those new schools. Making this too big will make it hard to succeed.

Lets not put IB in Woodward. Put some Stem and performing art combination in Woodward. No need to put IB in that region to be honest. Use existing IB in any region and stop putting more IBs.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS and MOCO is on a trashy path. In the last two summers:
- Get rid of MVA "because we dont have budgets"
- Increase diversity bullshit "because we now have budget"
- Pay shitload to former corrupt superintendent
- Increase property taxes "because we need more budget"
- Rezone school district "because we don't have budget"

Did i get all of what happened in last 18 months?

Anonymous wrote:They really need to start small on this and show some success. Don’t bus kids out of the walk zones for starters. Keep the flagship magnets and add some seats.

Do 1 maybe 2 regional magnets, IB the regions for Crown and Woodward. Leave it at that for starters. That will undoubtedly improve diversity. The primary goal is to fill those new schools. Making this too big will make it hard to succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

Yeah they very explicitly said in the presentation that they are looking at virtual options to ensure access for everyone.

On-line education worked so well during the pandemic, didn't it?

Kids doing a full school day unsupervised at home by teachers with varying skill at virtual teaching and little time to plan to adjust-- is wildly different than motivated high schoolers taking one or two high-level classes from their school building alongside some classmates, designed in a way to support online delivery and taught by a teacher who is interested in teaching online and can refine their skills at it every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

Yeah they very explicitly said in the presentation that they are looking at virtual options to ensure access for everyone.

On-line education worked so well during the pandemic, didn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are getting over hyped for no reason. Just wait and see no point in discussing what we can’t control. MCPS will just do whatever they want so stop wasting your energy.

Unfortunately, I think you might be correct about MCPS doing whatever it decides. When the public uproar hits afterwards, senior staff, such as the chief academic officer and the COO, may be forced out. BOE members may choose to retire or lose at the election polls, and perhaps we will be looking for another school superintendent after that. It's high stakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

Yeah they very explicitly said in the presentation that they are looking at virtual options to ensure access for everyone.

On-line education worked so well during the pandemic, didn't it?

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?

No, you are not missing something. That is where the complexity of these two separate initiatives: new regional HS system/programming and high school boundary studies collides with unknown outcomes. Theoretically, high schools such as Blair would get rid of its 19 portables, but who knows what Blair enrollment and its program requirements will be?

We don't even know what the specific programs are yet, much less where the programs will be located.

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?

Anonymous wrote:People are getting over hyped for no reason. Just wait and see no point in discussing what we can’t control. MCPS will just do whatever they want so stop wasting your energy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?

Yeah they very explicitly said in the presentation that they are looking at virtual options to ensure access for everyone.

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 an uniform offering for each region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with your second point (and also this suggests that the county magnets are going away, to be replaced by regional magnets). I’m concerned with issue 1, though, bc it leaves kids who could perform in higher level coursework and who for whatever reason don’t get into the magnets without options. Maybe some virtual classes?