Although I agree with you, the last sentence is inaccurate. About 1/4 of the juniors in SMCS take MVC (1 year) and magnet stat (1 semester) concurrently, with 1-2 additional math electives. |
No, because many a college admissions is not based on scores from the exams. They are only used to determine credit/advance standing. |
They may do that instead of offering an accelerated PreCalc that reincorporates that missing content (which wouldn't be deleting a course -- there is no "Integrated Algebra 3" in the adopted MSDE concept, though management of the Calculus pathway that the STEM-focused and others would select is left to the county school systems to define). That may be a disservice to those both highly able and Math-focused. Even if they did that to bring things back to a Calculus-in-11th expectation, they'd need to provide MVC as well. Requiring AB before BC is definitely a disservice (good as an option for those needing or desiring a less rigorous path). Meanwhile, only offering AP Stats in 12th for those completing BC in 11th creates a very burdensome discontinuity -- for any who would be aiming at a STEM field requiring it, MVC (sometimes monikered Calc 3, where AB is Calc 1 and BC is Calc 1 & 2 together) really must follow immediately. |
And it's not about being too cool for AP Stats. Stats is great to have. Stats is more important to have for most people than Calculus in the first place. However, the more important thing for those aiming at STEM such as EE or Math, itself, is direct continuity between instruction covering calculus of a single variable (covered in HS as AP Calc) and calculus of more than one variable (otherwise known as Multivariable Calculus or MVC). And I believe that, unlike AP Stats, Magnet Stats at SMCS incorporates Calc-based Statistics, helping preserve subject continuity prior to MVC for those not taking the two classes concurrently. Discussion of the SMCS magnet is a different animal than identification of the courses needed to support all students at their local HS. |
Sounds like 1/2 or more of these kids shouldn't be in SMCS if they aren't ready for MV as juniors. Why should kids take stats over MV if they are math kids? By the logic here we shouldn't have SMCS because it only helps a small population and the cost/benefit isn't there. |
MV is Calc 3. |
None of your posts make sense. You are arguing its ok your kids have access but not other kids. You argue like programs that supported more students like the MVA are unnecessary but the SMCS which really is unnecessary as these kids have the classes at their home schools is necessary. Its all aboout your wants and wishes without regard to other students needs. Sick. |
Um...yes? That is what the post said. |
Not sure where you see me argue against MVA. I have supported in-person as a generally better method of content delivery for most students. I also have suggested that in-person for some and virtual for others, not by choice but by zip code, would be an inequitable situation, precisely because of the former's generally being better for most students. Aside from having truly unique courses, SMCS serves students from areas that do not have courses beyond the APs (if that -- some don't routinely offer BC), not only students whose home school offers MVC or the like. My kids do not have the access you appear to assume. I suggest all students should have equitably similar access. Perhaps you are confusing my posts with those of others? It is an anonymous forum, after all. |
There is NO equity in MCPS except for W schools, Poolesville, BCC and a few others. Lets be real. According to the BOE slides, things may get much worse for the DCC students at their home schools as they are taking away programs and moving them to other schools which is the draw to those schools. SMCS have access to the classes at Blair but because of the program they are locked into a ridged schedule whcih is why some choose not to do it. I'm not getting whats so special via the posts here. Especially when the math is slowed down and the limitations. I don't get why some of these kids were picked over other kids who are more advanced in math and other areas. I don't get why W school kids who have opportunities at their home schools get preference over DCC kids who do not. |
And not to mention none of the NEC high schools offers MVC. Just ridiculous. |
Most of the rest 3/4 SMCS kids take MVC at senior year. It's a very populated course with a very popular and very capable teacher. |
As an outsider, it looks to me that the consortium model works well for DCC but not NEC, correct? Why? In many sense the new regional model looks very similar to the consortium model to me. So it's going to be very meaningful if CO can analyze why this works for some and not for others. |
Again, it sounds like those kids shouldn't all be in that program if other kids are taking it junior year and more ready. The cost vs. benefit of this program makes no sense when you argue reductions and whats cost effective. At a minimum, parents should have to provide transportation. |
The DCC isn't perfect and only two schools have advanced classes but its better than not having it at all. The amount of schools not having advanced classes isn't going to change with the regional model as the minimum schools are required to offer is BC, not MV. So, nothing will change for most of our kids and this is doing something for the sake of doing something vs. actually fixing the problems. |