Program analysis webinars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

No, I don't think so. Rockville HS has a purely local program and Kennedy HS had a criteria based programs and Rockville has much better scores than both Kennedy and Einstein.

Rockville's IB also is centered on the Career Programme vs. the Diploma Programme at Kennedy. The difficulty of achieving particular IB test scores may differ between the programs (it may not, of course, just throwing that out there as a possibility).

In addition to Kennedy's being a hard draw due to location/reputation of the school relative to the regional IB catchment, those seeking the highest IBDP achievement preferentially head to RM (if admitted). There isn't a higher-level IBCP in MCPS than that offered at Rockville to draw away those who might score higher.

I mean you can look up the scores for specific IB exams yourself. Rockville HS does better than Einstein HS on the same exams. And the difference is not small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Except they are not proposing the set of classes, locally, which would do this. Nothing ensured above Calc BC, even though standard acceleration through middle school makes MVC, at least, necessary in senior year for those who would be pursuing many STEM majors in college. No Physics C. Some higher-level humanities also would not be ensured at all schools, though they, and MVC, and Physics C, etc., will continue to be offered at certain local schools, aligning almost entirely with wealth ("community pull").

There likely won't be enough magnet seating at the academically rigorous magnets for many of those students seeking to "escape," and that will leave them stranded, with their local schools hurt due to the operational inefficiencies of less manageable cohorts for those even the less numerous advanced courses.

I agree that HS shouldn't be a place where any but the most focused, perhaps, are "majoring." Certainly, we shouldn't be making access to any particular concentration substantially different among schools (e.g., via disproportionate local set-asides), effectively pushing one community in a different direction from another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Serious question. What are the high achievers doing currently at Einstein? They’re not really scoring high scores on IB exams if they are enrolled in that program at Einstein. They may be leaving to attend special programs either within the DCC or countywide. I keep hearing from one poster that they can’t access the upper level science classes they need. It doesn’t seem like the new proposal is going to siphon off different students than the ones who are already applying out right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Damn you don't think visual arts kids are high achievers? Good lord.

The problem with Einstein's IB program is not the students, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Serious question. What are the high achievers doing currently at Einstein? They’re not really scoring high scores on IB exams if they are enrolled in that program at Einstein. They may be leaving to attend special programs either within the DCC or countywide. I keep hearing from one poster that they can’t access the upper level science classes they need. It doesn’t seem like the new proposal is going to siphon off different students than the ones who are already applying out right now.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.

Tell MCPS that. They might even listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

The high achievers will probably bail from mcps as there is not much for them. We will bail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Serious question. What are the high achievers doing currently at Einstein? They’re not really scoring high scores on IB exams if they are enrolled in that program at Einstein. They may be leaving to attend special programs either within the DCC or countywide. I keep hearing from one poster that they can’t access the upper level science classes they need. It doesn’t seem like the new proposal is going to siphon off different students than the ones who are already applying out right now.

They go without, or go to MC. There are no ap science and no math after BC. Very few other stem as well. If you don’t get into Wheaton or Blair you are out of luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Damn you don't think visual arts kids are high achievers? Good lord.

The problem with Einstein's IB program is not the students, btw.

Only a select group want in but is the only option. Agree it’s not the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Serious question. What are the high achievers doing currently at Einstein? They’re not really scoring high scores on IB exams if they are enrolled in that program at Einstein. They may be leaving to attend special programs either within the DCC or countywide. I keep hearing from one poster that they can’t access the upper level science classes they need. It doesn’t seem like the new proposal is going to siphon off different students than the ones who are already applying out right now.

They go without, or go to MC. There are no ap science and no math after BC. Very few other stem as well. If you don’t get into Wheaton or Blair you are out of luck.

I was pretty good at math and I got up to BC. Are there really that many kids that need more and if so can they not do it virtually?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

How many slots per program and what happens to the kids who don’t get slots? Einstein has limited course offerings. With a reduction in students and staff it will get worse not better. The principal will not advocate for the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.

Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).

Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...

...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.

Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.

It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.

With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.

Well said. Bring this statement to the BOE meeting and testify. It's hard to move a needle for arrogant and ignorant people, but at least you can throw valid statements in front of the face publicly. You can at least then tell your children that you had fight for them, and it's their ultimate responsibility to fight for themselves out of the unfair situation that the school system creates for them.

DP

Why the focus on these small programs that will only serve a small portion of kids? And if we are looking at these criteria based programs, only 2 out of 7 are proposed for BCC - IB and Humanities.

The 5 other criteria based programs are all at current DCC schools with FARMS rates of 40%:
- Science, math and computer science
- Communication
- Visual Arts Center
- Performing Arts
- Medical Science

Even if you exclude Visual Arts and Performing Arts since some people have such disdain for the arts (nevermind they can absolutely lead to amazing careers), there are still 3 criteria based academic programs proposed for DCC schools. And Einstein has an IB program which it can and should absolutely improve.

I think the previous PP's concern is setting criteria-based IB, humanity and STEM programs in other HSs in Region 1 will attract the majority of high achievers from Einstein, leaving them with less students as Einstein is by itself relatively small in size and lower student quality overall. It's going to make the situation worse for Einstein's own IB program, and setting other programs at Einstein won't help mitigate the situation or retaining those high achievers.

Serious question. What are the high achievers doing currently at Einstein? They’re not really scoring high scores on IB exams if they are enrolled in that program at Einstein. They may be leaving to attend special programs either within the DCC or countywide. I keep hearing from one poster that they can’t access the upper level science classes they need. It doesn’t seem like the new proposal is going to siphon off different students than the ones who are already applying out right now.

They go without, or go to MC. There are no ap science and no math after BC. Very few other stem as well. If you don’t get into Wheaton or Blair you are out of luck.

I was pretty good at math and I got up to BC. Are there really that many kids that need more and if so can they not do it virtually?

There is no virtual option. Yes there are kids that need and want it. They go to MC or go without.