Blind item: Regional criteria "magnets" will be lottery

[Anonymous]

Curriculum 2.0 (is that what it was called?) was such a complete disaster.

I hope MCPS learns from that…

[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:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

If a child starts Algebra in 6th they can go up to Linear Algebra. Why should they have the same opportunities to make them competitive in STEM? By your logic MVC shouldn't be taught at any schools.

The secondary math pathways are all changing:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DQYNJV603722/$file/Strengthening%20Math%20Policy%20Practice%20260205%20PPT.pdf

If they are condensing it, more kids will need MVC. This also doesn't take into account different schools do things differently and some allow algebra in 6th to draw smarter kids to the school. So, my kid in 8th, will not have enough classes at their home school.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

The new paradigm is not requiring those similarly advanced options be available everywhere as they are at some of the wealthiest-area schools -- the courses they have listed as advanced and to be available at all schools are available at most schools already (e.g., Calc BC but not MVC, AP Physics 1 but not AP Physics C, AP Seminar but not AP Research, etc.). There has been nothing yet stated indicating that they will prohibit the more advanced courses from remaining as offerings at the schools that currently have them (again, strongly correlating with higher-wealth areas).

To be clear, I don't think that they should restrict Whitman or Churchill (or WJ, or...) from holding such classes, but whenever they make such available to one school's general population they should ensure they are making the same or reasonably similar available to any student in the system. Blair's magnet programs, like other magnets, current or planned, have unique offerings which should not impact the plan for rigor generally available elsewhere.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

Stop making stuff up, they are not being removed from schools that have it. They are basically removing geometry which is a bad idea but hopefully they will still offer it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

The new paradigm is not requiring those similarly advanced options be available everywhere as they are at some of the wealthiest-area schools -- the courses they have listed as advanced and to be available at all schools are available at most schools already (e.g., Calc BC but not MVC, AP Physics 1 but not AP Physics C, AP Seminar but not AP Research, etc.). There has been nothing yet stated indicating that they will prohibit the more advanced courses from remaining as offerings at the schools that currently have them (again, strongly correlating with higher-wealth areas).

To be clear, I don't think that they should restrict Whitman or Churchill (or WJ, or...) from holding such classes, but whenever they make such available to one school's general population they should ensure they are making the same or reasonably similar available to any student in the system. Blair's magnet programs, like other magnets, current or planned, have unique offerings which should not impact the plan for rigor generally available elsewhere.

They should have it at every school or give kids access virtually or transport them to other schools.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

The new paradigm is not requiring those similarly advanced options be available everywhere as they are at some of the wealthiest-area schools -- the courses they have listed as advanced and to be available at all schools are available at most schools already (e.g., Calc BC but not MVC, AP Physics 1 but not AP Physics C, AP Seminar but not AP Research, etc.). There has been nothing yet stated indicating that they will prohibit the more advanced courses from remaining as offerings at the schools that currently have them (again, strongly correlating with higher-wealth areas).

To be clear, I don't think that they should restrict Whitman or Churchill (or WJ, or...) from holding such classes, but whenever they make such available to one school's general population they should ensure they are making the same or reasonably similar available to any student in the system. Blair's magnet programs, like other magnets, current or planned, have unique offerings which should not impact the plan for rigor generally available elsewhere.

Oh thank god! I am relieved to learn that these courses won't be banned, but merely not provided!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

Stop making stuff up, they are not being removed from schools that have it. They are basically removing geometry which is a bad idea but hopefully they will still offer it.

We're talking about post-calculus courses offered at magnets, not Geometry and the MSDE Integrated Algebra overhaul. Please pay attention to the thread you are commenting on.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

The new paradigm is not requiring those similarly advanced options be available everywhere as they are at some of the wealthiest-area schools -- the courses they have listed as advanced and to be available at all schools are available at most schools already (e.g., Calc BC but not MVC, AP Physics 1 but not AP Physics C, AP Seminar but not AP Research, etc.). There has been nothing yet stated indicating that they will prohibit the more advanced courses from remaining as offerings at the schools that currently have them (again, strongly correlating with higher-wealth areas).

To be clear, I don't think that they should restrict Whitman or Churchill (or WJ, or...) from holding such classes, but whenever they make such available to one school's general population they should ensure they are making the same or reasonably similar available to any student in the system. Blair's magnet programs, like other magnets, current or planned, have unique offerings which should not impact the plan for rigor generally available elsewhere.

Oh thank god! I am relieved to learn that these courses won't be banned, but merely not provided!

Where are you getting that?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

Stop making stuff up, they are not being removed from schools that have it. They are basically removing geometry which is a bad idea but hopefully they will still offer it.

We're talking about post-calculus courses offered at magnets, not Geometry and the MSDE Integrated Algebra overhaul. Please pay attention to the thread you are commenting on.

No one cares or is talking about the magnets. We need them at all schools. Just because our kids are not at magnets doesn’t mean they don’t need or want them.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

Stop making stuff up, they are not being removed from schools that have it. They are basically removing geometry which is a bad idea but hopefully they will still offer it.

We're talking about post-calculus courses offered at magnets, not Geometry and the MSDE Integrated Algebra overhaul. Please pay attention to the thread you are commenting on.

No one cares or is talking about the magnets. We need them at all schools. Just because our kids are not at magnets doesn’t mean they don’t need or want them.

So no regional program, but rather use the money to hire qualified teachers to open high level courses at every HS right?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

Stop making stuff up, they are not being removed from schools that have it. They are basically removing geometry which is a bad idea but hopefully they will still offer it.

We're talking about post-calculus courses offered at magnets, not Geometry and the MSDE Integrated Algebra overhaul. Please pay attention to the thread you are commenting on.

No one cares or is talking about the magnets. We need them at all schools. Just because our kids are not at magnets doesn’t mean they don’t need or want them.

So no regional program, but rather use the money to hire qualified teachers to open high level courses at every HS right?

They probably choose the schools they did as they have the teachers. We have teachers who could teach the higher classes but the principal will not allow it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

Somewhere there is a list of higher level courses that will be offered at all schools

Yes, but MVC Mom doesn't consider AP Calc BC to be higher level.

Is it equitable that students from more wealthy areas are offered the opportunity to take MVC at their HS if their Mathematics path puts them there while the same school system denies that opportunity to similarly able/prepared/interested students from less wealthy areas?

-- Not MVC Mom

Churchill parent here. As far as I know, Churchill offers MVC while Wootton does not. I would think Wootton tends to have more math-advanced students than Churchill in general. So not all wealthy HSs offer that.

But you bring up a case in point. Churchill. Whitman. What do these schools have in common? The greatest concentrations of wealth and the widest advanced offerings exclusive of those at magnets.

Though there may be counterexamples, any reasonable analysis of the data will show that clear, strong correlation. Why should a public school system not be serving, equivalently, individuals from less wealthy areas as it does those from more wealthy areas? The current paradigm reinforces privilege, accruing disproportionate benefit of public services to those with the most, and the plan MCPS has proffered, as is, will continue that, quite unnecessarily.

The new paradigm is REMOVING those options from the schools that will no longer have access to Blair.

Stop making stuff up, they are not being removed from schools that have it. They are basically removing geometry which is a bad idea but hopefully they will still offer it.

We're talking about post-calculus courses offered at magnets, not Geometry and the MSDE Integrated Algebra overhaul. Please pay attention to the thread you are commenting on.

No one cares or is talking about the magnets. We need them at all schools. Just because our kids are not at magnets doesn’t mean they don’t need or want them.

So no regional program, but rather use the money to hire qualified teachers to open high level courses at every HS right?

They probably choose the schools they did as they have the teachers. We have teachers who could teach the higher classes but the principal will not allow it.

That is the frustrating thing. They are still high school classes, and the students are relatively easy to teach. So, there are plenty of teachers that can teach this stuff, you can even get a wet behind the ear grad student to teach college classes. It's not that hard. Most of the AP equivalent freshman college classes are taught in a giant lecture hall with a TA to grade.

It's a crying shame to deny good student's access.

MCPS has no excuse. The stratification is totally corrupt. I do not respect anyone at the W schools for tolerating this.

They make way too big of a deal out of these "special programs" for what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie said something at some point about how they had looked at magnet programs in other large districts similar to MCPS and that many/most of them do lotteries for placement rather than ranking candidates.

Anyone know where she might be referring to?

"School districts similar to MCPS" meaning bad districts? Most of those probably do use lotteries.

Good districts? Do not

TJ
IMSA
Stuyvesant
Frazer


And of course the top performing privates like GDS and Exeter and Proof School don't use lotteries.

Compare MCPS to FCPS. MCPS boundary slop ends up with Churchill at 112.6% capacity and is relying on transfers out for programs. Remove Blair and Richard Montgomery IB could result in lower movement out of Churchill. https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/07/25/mcps-end-countywide-program-consortia/ https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/02/24/richard-montgomery-ptas-speak-out-on-school-boundaries/

FCPS runs TJ and TJ has no base school/geographic students and is an application process. FCPS has 8 IB high schools. Drain on the budget and Robinson runs IB and AP. None are magnets like the successful program in MCPS RMHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie said something at some point about how they had looked at magnet programs in other large districts similar to MCPS and that many/most of them do lotteries for placement rather than ranking candidates.

Anyone know where she might be referring to?

"School districts similar to MCPS" meaning bad districts? Most of those probably do use lotteries.

Good districts? Do not

TJ
IMSA
Stuyvesant
Frazer


And of course the top performing privates like GDS and Exeter and Proof School don't use lotteries.

Compare MCPS to FCPS. MCPS boundary slop ends up with Churchill at 112.6% capacity and is relying on transfers out for programs. Remove Blair and Richard Montgomery IB could result in lower movement out of Churchill. https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/07/25/mcps-end-countywide-program-consortia/ https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/02/24/richard-montgomery-ptas-speak-out-on-school-boundaries/

FCPS runs TJ and TJ has no base school/geographic students and is an application process. FCPS has 8 IB high schools. Drain on the budget and Robinson runs IB and AP. None are magnets like the successful program in MCPS RMHS.

How many students graduate with IB diplomas? I know very few. Parents push them but students often prefer AP, but IB is their only option. It's not a drain to run both IB and AP. Instead of offering 3 sections of a math class in IB, they can offer one AP and two IB taught by the same teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curriculum 2.0 (is that what it was called?) was such a complete disaster.

I hope MCPS learns from that…

No, it didn't. MCPS is still developing homemade curriculum, e.g., high school English.