Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would happen if the board didn't pass the regional model since all of the boundary study data and recommendations assume the regional model is getting implemented.

It wouldn't make much difference-- they're just making up numbers of how many kids will leave from or go to different schools (for example, that 400 Whitman students are going to leave Whitman for regional programs at Northwood, Einstein, Blair, and BCC-- yeah right.) And even with the made-up numbers, the regional programs only shift enrollment projections by 100 or less kids either way in most cases, and that's when fully implemented for all 4 grades (so probably only a few dozen different in year one.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before my kid started MCPS I used to not fully understand all the complaining. But we are only 1.5 years in and I just can't with these people. This is all just a huge, expensive distraction from the reality that they are graduating a large majority of kids not graduate proficient in math and reading.

Yep - how much is this regional disaster going to cost us?

And in the meantime, the school district is writing its own English Language Arts curriculum for high schools. You might have wondered why that refrigerator curriculum looked haphazard and cast such a low bar. Why can't we buy externally developed and externally evaluated curriculum as the Maryland Blueprint requires? Because we are spending untold millions on implementing up to 100 ill-designed regional programs that will also utilize homemade curriculum.

hahahaha.. another 2.0 disaster. My kids started MCPS when they implemented 2.0, and I was willing to give it a chance. I defended it on this forum. What I dummy I was. 2.0 was a freakin disaster and MCPS thinks they can write their own curriculum at the HS level?

So glad we are done with MCPS this spring.

HS level curricula have been MCPS-created, including the Magnets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

That is not accurate-- please don't email with inaccurate information or you will not have credibility. The budget increase for the regional programs for this coming year is only a couple million dollars, not $10M. (It will very likely swell way past that when they actually implement it, but it is not yet.)

My bad. Just went on checking the actual numbers. Could you kindly cross-check with me?
I'm looking at the executive summary table here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13G_ub9T6wW2tXU0yCtfWjQqM4ij5e_TxOrclMvoOPzs/edit?gid=252197658#gid=252197658

Looks to me that Item #56 and #57 are direct personnel hires related to the planning of regional programs:
56 Special Education Behavioral Support 6.0000 1,001,166 4 Additional Cross Functional Team positions for behavioral support - 1/Region
57 Regional Programs Support 10.0000 922,815 3 & 9 School based personnel to plan for and support regional program model

So a total of 16 full-time FTE with $2 million cost next year for planning. Is this a correct estimation? I'm now trying to dig out the operating budget estimation that Taylor presented in one of the recent BOE meetings (maybe November?), where his estimated total cost of all regional programs is ~ $10 million/year (including transportation). Planning takes $2 million, and looks like these job functions need to stay in the future. Already 20% of the total cost, and we haven't started to hire a single teacher or bus driver yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before my kid started MCPS I used to not fully understand all the complaining. But we are only 1.5 years in and I just can't with these people. This is all just a huge, expensive distraction from the reality that they are graduating a large majority of kids not graduate proficient in math and reading.

Yep - how much is this regional disaster going to cost us?

And in the meantime, the school district is writing its own English Language Arts curriculum for high schools. You might have wondered why that refrigerator curriculum looked haphazard and cast such a low bar. Why can't we buy externally developed and externally evaluated curriculum as the Maryland Blueprint requires? Because we are spending untold millions on implementing up to 100 ill-designed regional programs that will also utilize homemade curriculum.

hahahaha.. another 2.0 disaster. My kids started MCPS when they implemented 2.0, and I was willing to give it a chance. I defended it on this forum. What I dummy I was. 2.0 was a freakin disaster and MCPS thinks they can write their own curriculum at the HS level?

So glad we are done with MCPS this spring.

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

That is not accurate-- please don't email with inaccurate information or you will not have credibility. The budget increase for the regional programs for this coming year is only a couple million dollars, not $10M. (It will very likely swell way past that when they actually implement it, but it is not yet.)

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious how this compares to other programs that have a central pickup location that parents also have to drive to - like for immersion? Or do they? I could be wrong on that too.

I'm not saying existing ones are correctly set up either and I know there have been issues but I'm having trouble piecing this info together with the regional program proposal - which I am very skeptical about for alot of reasons besides transportation. This thread makes me think I might be adding transportation to that list.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, BTW, BOE even approved Taylor's proposed operating budget with adding $10 million more on top of an already record-high operating budget in MCPS history. And by the way, if haven't noticed, the proposed budget for "PLANNING the regional program" will cost $10 million next fiscal year. This is for planning only. I'll write an email to council members to call for disapproval of this $10 million budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who could have foreseen that rushing to create an entirely new, much larger system of programs without adequate resources or any input from stakeholders would have drawbacks? It’s shocking.

Indeed! Who woulda thought?

If only somebody had said something, created a petition, etc. Surely MCPS would have been convinced of the obvious if only someone had just alerted them to the issue s/

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the OP for sharing this update. It's infuriating! If this is really the plan, the regional programs will be a failure, with limited participation. It will be a step backwards for the current regional progams (like the IB programs in the NEC and DCC), which currently have neighborhood stops; switching to high school stops only will likely make these programs far less appealing or feasible for many families, and the new programs will suffer in the same way.

I wrote to the Board of Ed about this when this plan was first being discussed back in November, highlighting the inequities and impossibilities of this plan. I am going to write again now in the (probably futile) hope that the Board will question this prior to voting. I encourage others to do the same.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the OP for sharing this update. It's infuriating! If this is really the plan, the regional programs will be a failure, with limited participation. It will be a step backwards for the current regional progams (like the IB programs in the NEC and DCC), which currently have neighborhood stops; switching to high school stops only will likely make these programs far less appealing or feasible for many families, and the new programs will suffer in the same way.

I wrote to the Board of Ed about this when this plan was first being discussed back in November, highlighting the inequities and impossibilities of this plan. I am going to write again now in the (probably futile) hope that the Board will question this prior to voting. I encourage others to do the same.