Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Right I'm saying MCPS should focus on getting folks like your kids to school and let those who can do so easily take public transit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Not where we are. It would take multiple buses to get anywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

From our house in the DCC kid can get to 4 out of 5 Region 1 schools within 30 minutes door to door on public transit and there are a lot of apartments near us in a similar situation. I think they could mitigate some of the costs and focus on serving those far from public transit hubs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Also Essie McGuire told the County Council that they thought that transportation costs would actually go down after the transition to the regional model is complete. There's no way that could possibly be true if they actually do robust, convenient bus service to the regional programs-- that's gotta mean they'll do the bare minimum (HS to HS) no matter how inconvenient and inequitable it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Yes, the entire regional model is designed to be against-DEI and against-equity under the equity cover-up. I've heard several testimonies tore off this fig leaf, but CO didn't care, didn't clarify and BOE didn't feel there's any problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Oh I see - so kids have to get to their high school and then get transportation to regional programs and same on the way home. In other words this is not going to work for kids with after school jobs or caregiving responsibilities.

Damn CO, really leaning into anti-DEI this fall.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, this is not a leap. In their August BOE meeting slide deck, when they did the "added bus" scenario estimation, they estimated an additional 20 buses for a region of 5 HSs. That's basically 4*5, meaning they only consider HS to HS transportation. And this is also what they described during the presentation. You can go dig out the recording and take a look.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does comparing the "enrollment with transfers" with the "resident students within current boundaries" give an indication of how many kids are transferring into (lotterying into) each HS?

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.

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.