Making the most of the MCPS sessions on regional model 10/22 and 10/27

[Anonymous]

Literally the only impact of putting a humanities program at Whitman is that there will be fewer high achieving students at Einstein, Northwood, Blair and BCC. Does Whitman not have enough high achieving students? Smh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

If it’s so desirable, why aren’t current students and parents clamoring for it? You don’t see anyone on DCUM begging for more certified nursing assistant classes the way you see parents asking for multivariable calculus.

1. Kids headed to CNA programs don't have parents who hang out at their cushy office jobs and SAHM roles and chat on DCUM.

2. Kids need room in schedule to finish high school curriculum before moving on to college or career curriculum. Kids who are academically advanced in math have room in their schedule for college math. Academically advanced students interested in nursing are pre-Bachelors looking at the academic programs, not CNA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+ 1 those schools also already have numerous AP courses that give college credit. Whitman has 9 AP social studies courses. GMAFB. They don't need a humanities "certification" and they definitely don't need to bring in 200 high achieving kids from other schools. Has nobody at central office heard of cream skimming and why you don't place magnets at wealthy schools? I can't believe they are daring to use the word equity for this disgrace.

The "Humanities" program is mainly a renaming of the existing AP program, and inviting students from other schools to attend.

What's wrong with "cream skimming"???
That's exactly what parents have been begging for, to give advanced kids access to advanced classes.

If you pull a lot of the highest achieving students out of poorer schools into magnets at richer schools, there are often not enough left to offer high level courses and provide an academic peer group for those students. It hurts the ones who stay behind, and doesn't really help anyone else much.

If you pull high achieving kids out of richer schools into magnets at poorer schools, there are typically still plenty of high achieving kids at the richer schools so it doesn't really impact them much. Meanwhile, the poor, smart kids both in and outside of the magnet benefit from the bigger cohort and better classes the magnet brings to the poorer school (also, more poor kids actually attend the magnets when it's in their home school, rather than declining to attend when it's far away at a rich school.). It helps most kids and doesn't hurt anyone much.

This is like magnet school 101 and implemented in districts all around the country. Leave it to MCPS to screw it up because they're trying to get this thing designed and implemented at breakneck speed...

[Anonymous]

Taylor and MCPS are doubling down on their stance with the regional program proposal, by just repeating equity over and over again, without addressing any of the meaningful concerns with regard to cost, scale, resources and accountability that parents and advocates have made.

It's disgusting to have a school system that absolutely refuses to listen to its community and steamrolls us over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Taylor and MCPS are doubling down on their stance with the regional program proposal, by just repeating equity over and over again, without addressing any of the meaningful concerns with regard to cost, scale, resources and accountability that parents and advocates have made.

It's disgusting to have a school system that absolutely refuses to listen to its community and steamrolls us over and over again.

+1 It continually sickens me to see our school system led by the absolute worst people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Taylor and MCPS are doubling down on their stance with the regional program proposal, by just repeating equity over and over again, without addressing any of the meaningful concerns with regard to cost, scale, resources and accountability that parents and advocates have made.

It's disgusting to have a school system that absolutely refuses to listen to its community and steamrolls us over and over again.

+1 It continually sickens me to see our school system led by the absolute worst people

Seriously the absolutely worse people🙄. Let’s not over exaggerate. This are people trying to do good work who have pressure and politics hefted upon them just like everyone else. We may want them to do something else or listen more but let’s not go as far as saying “the absolutely worse people.” Some of ya’ll might not look so great under the spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

Throw Global Ecology into that "Leadership" bucket too. Just the catch-all theme for all the miscellaneous one-off programs that they couldn't lump into one of the other themes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Yeah I’m not going to be upset that kids are getting industry recognized certifications because that doesn’t have to go against rigor and is actually helpful. Some of ya’ll clearly don’t understand the 2025+ college admission landscape or the job market.

If you are majoring in the Arts, having an Adobe or CADD certification is in your interest. If you’re claiming to want to go into medicine, having a clinical related certificate is in your favor as it shows interest and commitment. Not to mention it understands the response not everyone is actually going to be Pre-Med and make it to becoming a doctor and there are lots of other Science/Medicine avenues.

Oh and this comment about “MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs”, makes it seem like MCPS has a choice in whether they check this box or not. It’s a state regulation, and MCPS generally gets a bunch of focus from the state on things like this, so I can certainly understand them trying to find ways to help make policy things reality that often are ambiguous and don’t have enough funding tied to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

Throw Global Ecology into that "Leadership" bucket too. Just the catch-all theme for all the miscellaneous one-off programs that they couldn't lump into one of the other themes.

A case could be made for Ecology being in the leadership bucket but not in the way they’ve framed the theme and not in the way people understand the Ecology program.

Ecology itself is interdisciplinary and for MCPS should become a Science and Sustainability program alongside C.A.S.E.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Taylor and MCPS are doubling down on their stance with the regional program proposal, by just repeating equity over and over again, without addressing any of the meaningful concerns with regard to cost, scale, resources and accountability that parents and advocates have made.

It's disgusting to have a school system that absolutely refuses to listen to its community and steamrolls us over and over again.

+1 It continually sickens me to see our school system led by the absolute worst people

Seriously the absolutely worse people🙄. Let’s not over exaggerate. This are people trying to do good work who have pressure and politics hefted upon them just like everyone else. We may want them to do something else or listen more but let’s not go as far as saying “the absolutely worse people.” Some of ya’ll might not look so great under the spotlight.

Come on. The people insisting on pushing this program model forward are horrible. They are dismantling established programs and pretending to set up new programs they have no intention of supporting in meaningful way. They are proposing setting them up in an obviously inequitable way, and calling it equity. Whoever is calling the shots on this - I'm thinking Thomas Taylor - is a horrible person. But I guess I should be grateful he hasn't yet promoted a serial sexual harasser (afaik).

[Anonymous]

Oh and he's going to leave right when the going gets tough. Pure trash

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh and he's going to leave right when the going gets tough. Pure trash

Yup. Taylor will be outta here in 3-4 years, if we're lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Yeah I’m not going to be upset that kids are getting industry recognized certifications because that doesn’t have to go against rigor and is actually helpful. Some of ya’ll clearly don’t understand the 2025+ college admission landscape or the job market.

If you are majoring in the Arts, having an Adobe or CADD certification is in your interest. If you’re claiming to want to go into medicine, having a clinical related certificate is in your favor as it shows interest and commitment. Not to mention it understands the response not everyone is actually going to be Pre-Med and make it to becoming a doctor and there are lots of other Science/Medicine avenues.

Oh and this comment about “MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs”, makes it seem like MCPS has a choice in whether they check this box or not. It’s a state regulation, and MCPS generally gets a bunch of focus from the state on things like this, so I can certainly understand them trying to find ways to help make policy things reality that often are ambiguous and don’t have enough funding tied to them.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

Will they actually provide busing for Whitman Social Justice in the future? Because my 8th grader isn't applying because there's no bus transport--which is not promoting anything related to equity to only have kids there who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there somehow.