Dear reader,
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is moving ahead with its boundary study and program analysis, presenting four new options for the proposed attendance zone of the new Charles W. Woodward High School in Rockville this week.
After reviewing the options, which seem to offer a more practical alignment than the initial round of options MCPS presented in June, I spent Tuesday evening at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High listening to parents’ concerns about the boundary study following a district presentation.
Parents said they wanted MCPS to better explain the changes to the initial options and raised concerns about the potential impact on diversity in schools. But they also had concerns about the district’s ongoing program analysis.
So far, the program analysis has resulted in a proposal to change the MCPS model for programming by dividing the district into six regions, instead of offering the mix of countywide and regional programs that currently exist. Stakeholders have continued to raise concerns about issues — such as the elimination of the Down County Consortium and a potential lack of teachers to staff regional programs — since I last wrote about worries many had in August. Many parents say the program analysis is moving too fast for their liking.
Their comments weren’t surprising to me, especially after learning that the Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) recently introduced a draft resolution asking MCPS to slow down its program analysis. Superintendent Thomas Taylor is expected to present a recommendation about a programming model to the school board for a vote by the end of December.
The resolution argues that MCPS hasn’t done enough to provide information or conduct community engagement about the proposed reorganization of academic programs. It asks MCPS to delay action for at least one year. MCCPTA President Brigid Howe told me the resolution is now in the hands of local PTAs for feedback before the association votes on it at the end of October.
The district’s communication with families concerning the proposed programming model is also raising concerns. One couple told me Tuesday night they didn’t know about the program analysis. Another parent said she doesn’t understand the nature of the analysis. Howe told me last week that she’s been raising concerns about communication problems regarding the analysis with MCPS for more than a year.
“It has not been made clear to parents or students what's at stake,” Howe told me. “And I think that's doing a disservice to the community, especially considering that these decisions are supposed to be finalized in December.”
Parents aren’t the only ones raising concerns. County Councilmember Natali Fani-González sent a letter to the Council Education and Culture Committee on Oct. 2 relaying concerns from her constituents and noting that it’s been difficult to find clear information online about the program analysis.
“While MCPS has done a commendable job communicating around the boundary study process, some feel that the same level of transparency and engagement has not been extended to this academic restructuring effort,” Fani-González said in her letter.
The council education committee is scheduled to review the program analysis at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. I’ll be there to see what councilmembers have to say about the potential changes in academic programming.
Studiously,
Ashlyn
|
