MCPS to end areawide Blair Magnet and countywide Richard Montgomery's IB program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

So the solution shouldn't be to get rid of Blair, but to increase hires of teachers who can teach these schools at every high school in MCPS. I really don't get why they're getting rid of Blair instead of improving on the courses and teachers at other high schools. I completely agree with your point that children in non-magnet programs need more qualified teachers teaching their courses. My son's home school has a mainly chemistry teacher teaching some part of MV Calc. But the solution shouldn't be getting rid of the magnet programs, that really help students interested in STEM. The idea of getting rid of Blair and RM IB is just silly in my opinion.

No one is cares about Blair but a few of you and then you assume the rest of us care. STEM is a general term and that program doesn't meet all kids interests. Mine had no interest in it.

What we are saying is many of the current teachers CAN teach higher level so add more science and math AP, as well as MV and linear algebra. They can alighn the school schedules and offer it virtually too. We have multiple teachers who could teach it but the principal refuses to allow them to.

[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:The worst thing about this is the loss of the incredible magnet teachers that we will have at both the RM IB and Blair SMCS. My son is a student at the Blair Magnet program, and their math teacher has a PHD in math from Yale! Other teachers are equally qualified and hold PHDs from many renowned universities in the country. There is no way that these teachers will opt for teaching county magnet programs, as they are more than qualified to teach college level classes with much more pay as well. They stay because they enjoy teaching a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. The loss of teachers will be something we won't be able to replace, even after Taylor is gone.

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here, about the teachers and the future students.

Not that pp, but my child also goes to the same program, and more than one teachers told their personal stories to students about why they chose to stay in Blair SMACS, and the reasons are highly similar to what described above. They will choose to leave the magnet as it's not rewarding anymore to themselves, and practically many of the current courses will not exist anymore due to lack of enrollment.

If true, those teachers are not great in reasoning then, and perhaps not as incredible as some PPs describe. They’re assuming students in the future regional magnet will not be a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. We don’t know the criteria of the regional program, so we don’t know what those students will be like. If they maintain a hard cutoff of 90% MAP (“A” students by objective measure), the type of students should be the same. Incredible teachers are good at reasoning and not emotionally reactive.

It has been repeatedly cited in this forum that the median MAP-M score for the admitted students is somewhere around 285, which is >99% for Grade 12 according to NWEA breakdown. More than 50% of the current SMACS students came from Churchill and Wootton, and the 3rd is WJ. Many admitted students had won state or national STEM prizes before joining SMACS. What makes believe that the new regional program wouldn't be significantly watered down?

The fact that most of the current students came from just 3 schools suggests that it should be no problem to fill the regional programs with kids from 4-5 schools each, right? The admission standards might have to be a tad bit lower if the distribution of smart kids isn't exactly equal between those 3 schools and the others in the county, but presumably that's a pretty small difference.

Is this a joke?
It's astronomically different. What is your explanation for why almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies for SMACS, while students from Rockville/Potomac/Bethesda bus in from far away?

SMACS already struggles to fill upper level courses, offering many electives only once every 2 years.

Splitting Blair SMACS into 3 would eliminate those classes.

The Functions (advanced/accelerated Alg2/Precalculus) class has 20 kids. If you split those kids across 2-3 regions, what happens to them?

Yes, there are students that would thrive in regional STEM programs that enhance their current home school offerings with more AP options and some electives. No, no one is helped by shattering the current SMACS into 4 parts and pretending that those kids are well-matched to programs that run courses at half the academic pace.

What on earth makes you think that "almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies"? There's like 30+ Silver Spring kids who actually attend Blair SMCS every year right now, plus presumably many others who get "beat out' by richer kids from elsewhere in the county who can juice their MAP scores in ways most Silver Spring families can't. Why would the difference in the number of smart, motivated kids from rich schools and poor schools be "astronomically different"?

37 in total from Blair catchment: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf

I agree with you that switching to regional model might encourage more admitted students from, e.g., Whiteman, to attend Blair. But the overall number of "qualified" students is undoubtedly going to reduce significantly. Of course you can always lower down the qualification threshold.

Blair is not the only school in Silver Spring. And if the qualification threshold isn't based on the intelligence and potential of the students, but is just based on getting super-high MAP scores which can be and frequently are gamed/skewed, then probably it should be lowered so that the smartest kids don't get blocked out by "merely bright" hard workers with rich parents who are good at test prep. But that doesn't mean the standards would be decreased-- arguably you would get even higher numbers of the smartest kids in that way.

The top feeders to Blair, by catchment, are:

1. Wootton (25%)
2. Churchill (20%)
3. The entire DCC combined. (Blair, Wheaton, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwood) (20%)

And that's not counting kids who don't go to Blair from W because of the long commute or because they go to elite private schools (Whitman catchment).

The "prep" whine is a myth. The W kids at SMACS who are getting that 285+ (SMACS median) are mostly getting it by 7th, a whole year ahead of the application deadline.

Anyone getting an A in geometry in 8th grade is getting 285+ or very close to it.

Anyway the whole "prep" complaint is nonsensical. If your kid doesn't like doing more than the minimum amount of work the school assigns in middle school, not even a tiny bit of Khan academy, then why the heck would your kid want to go to SMACS, with an extra course every year, with accelerated courses with more homework?

Do you seriously think that the only reason some kids don't do lots of supplementation and test prep is because they're not hard-working and don't like schoolwork? You must live in a bubble. Just because it's common knowledge in your circles that if you want to get into Blair you've got to play the game and do Khan Academy or whatever to get ahead of what's taught in school, doesn't mean that everyone else knows that. And they shouldn't have to, and families that do know shouldn't get extra advantages because of it.

Teachers are perfectly capable of mentoring smart, but disadvantaged kids. That happened to lots of us. And frankly, those kids have lots of time in class with Chromebooks if they want to do well.

Many of these smarter kids aren't disadvantaged but their parents choose lower cost housing as either they are in lower paying professions or one income or another reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The worst thing about this is the loss of the incredible magnet teachers that we will have at both the RM IB and Blair SMCS. My son is a student at the Blair Magnet program, and their math teacher has a PHD in math from Yale! Other teachers are equally qualified and hold PHDs from many renowned universities in the country. There is no way that these teachers will opt for teaching county magnet programs, as they are more than qualified to teach college level classes with much more pay as well. They stay because they enjoy teaching a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. The loss of teachers will be something we won't be able to replace, even after Taylor is gone.

Do you think that Taylor even understands what he is doing? Getting rid of our high achieving programs is not going to correct educational disparities experienced in different student cohorts.

I’m sure he does not. Please make sure to reach out to him and to the board to let him know

They know exactly what they are doing. The purpose is to address equity and underrepresentation. Very well emphasized at the last BOE mtg.

And they deliberately don't want to replicate SMCS programming. They want SMCS to become generic STEM. That is the point.

You’re missing the point. I don’t think he understands the implications of this plan and how it will actually pan out. Afterall they haven’t genuinely consulted families, or anyone involved with the magnet.

He doesn't understand what he is doing, and he doesn't care to investigate further by talking with high achieving students, their teachers and their principals.

Taylor was a terrible hire. He is making too many changes too quickly and he is making uninformed decisions. Geez, he can't even get payroll sorted correctly or security checks completed on personnel.

He should be counting votes on the BOE as to who is going to be around past the next election cycle. Odds are that 4 of them are retiring in the next election cycle. I am voting for the candidates who want to hire a new superintendent that has experience overseeing a large school district and understands the need to provide curriculum for a diversity of students, including high achievers.

Taylor was hired to put on a show to deflect from the BOE's poor judgment and decisions. It was never intended for him to make real changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

I agree that that is a change that is necessary. But why get rid of Blair to implement these changes. It's not as if they will try to move the teachers from Blair magnet to the regional programs.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

So the solution shouldn't be to get rid of Blair, but to increase hires of teachers who can teach these schools at every high school in MCPS. I really don't get why they're getting rid of Blair instead of improving on the courses and teachers at other high schools. I completely agree with your point that children in non-magnet programs need more qualified teachers teaching their courses. My son's home school has a mainly chemistry teacher teaching some part of MV Calc. But the solution shouldn't be getting rid of the magnet programs, that really help students interested in STEM. The idea of getting rid of Blair and RM IB is just silly in my opinion.

No one is cares about Blair but a few of you and then you assume the rest of us care. STEM is a general term and that program doesn't meet all kids interests. Mine had no interest in it.

What we are saying is many of the current teachers CAN teach higher level so add more science and math AP, as well as MV and linear algebra. They can alighn the school schedules and offer it virtually too. We have multiple teachers who could teach it but the principal refuses to allow them to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

So the solution shouldn't be to get rid of Blair, but to increase hires of teachers who can teach these schools at every high school in MCPS. I really don't get why they're getting rid of Blair instead of improving on the courses and teachers at other high schools. I completely agree with your point that children in non-magnet programs need more qualified teachers teaching their courses. My son's home school has a mainly chemistry teacher teaching some part of MV Calc. But the solution shouldn't be getting rid of the magnet programs, that really help students interested in STEM. The idea of getting rid of Blair and RM IB is just silly in my opinion.

No one is cares about Blair but a few of you and then you assume the rest of us care. STEM is a general term and that program doesn't meet all kids interests. Mine had no interest in it.

What we are saying is many of the current teachers CAN teach higher level so add more science and math AP, as well as MV and linear algebra. They can alighn the school schedules and offer it virtually too. We have multiple teachers who could teach it but the principal refuses to allow them to.

Dumb kids usually don’t care.

Np

[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:The worst thing about this is the loss of the incredible magnet teachers that we will have at both the RM IB and Blair SMCS. My son is a student at the Blair Magnet program, and their math teacher has a PHD in math from Yale! Other teachers are equally qualified and hold PHDs from many renowned universities in the country. There is no way that these teachers will opt for teaching county magnet programs, as they are more than qualified to teach college level classes with much more pay as well. They stay because they enjoy teaching a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. The loss of teachers will be something we won't be able to replace, even after Taylor is gone.

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here, about the teachers and the future students.

Not that pp, but my child also goes to the same program, and more than one teachers told their personal stories to students about why they chose to stay in Blair SMACS, and the reasons are highly similar to what described above. They will choose to leave the magnet as it's not rewarding anymore to themselves, and practically many of the current courses will not exist anymore due to lack of enrollment.

If true, those teachers are not great in reasoning then, and perhaps not as incredible as some PPs describe. They’re assuming students in the future regional magnet will not be a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. We don’t know the criteria of the regional program, so we don’t know what those students will be like. If they maintain a hard cutoff of 90% MAP (“A” students by objective measure), the type of students should be the same. Incredible teachers are good at reasoning and not emotionally reactive.

It has been repeatedly cited in this forum that the median MAP-M score for the admitted students is somewhere around 285, which is >99% for Grade 12 according to NWEA breakdown. More than 50% of the current SMACS students came from Churchill and Wootton, and the 3rd is WJ. Many admitted students had won state or national STEM prizes before joining SMACS. What makes believe that the new regional program wouldn't be significantly watered down?

The fact that most of the current students came from just 3 schools suggests that it should be no problem to fill the regional programs with kids from 4-5 schools each, right? The admission standards might have to be a tad bit lower if the distribution of smart kids isn't exactly equal between those 3 schools and the others in the county, but presumably that's a pretty small difference.

Is this a joke?
It's astronomically different. What is your explanation for why almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies for SMACS, while students from Rockville/Potomac/Bethesda bus in from far away?

SMACS already struggles to fill upper level courses, offering many electives only once every 2 years.

Splitting Blair SMACS into 3 would eliminate those classes.

The Functions (advanced/accelerated Alg2/Precalculus) class has 20 kids. If you split those kids across 2-3 regions, what happens to them?

Yes, there are students that would thrive in regional STEM programs that enhance their current home school offerings with more AP options and some electives. No, no one is helped by shattering the current SMACS into 4 parts and pretending that those kids are well-matched to programs that run courses at half the academic pace.

What on earth makes you think that "almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies"? There's like 30+ Silver Spring kids who actually attend Blair SMCS every year right now, plus presumably many others who get "beat out' by richer kids from elsewhere in the county who can juice their MAP scores in ways most Silver Spring families can't. Why would the difference in the number of smart, motivated kids from rich schools and poor schools be "astronomically different"?

37 in total from Blair catchment: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf

I agree with you that switching to regional model might encourage more admitted students from, e.g., Whiteman, to attend Blair. But the overall number of "qualified" students is undoubtedly going to reduce significantly. Of course you can always lower down the qualification threshold.

Blair is not the only school in Silver Spring. And if the qualification threshold isn't based on the intelligence and potential of the students, but is just based on getting super-high MAP scores which can be and frequently are gamed/skewed, then probably it should be lowered so that the smartest kids don't get blocked out by "merely bright" hard workers with rich parents who are good at test prep. But that doesn't mean the standards would be decreased-- arguably you would get even higher numbers of the smartest kids in that way.

The top feeders to Blair, by catchment, are:

1. Wootton (25%)
2. Churchill (20%)
3. The entire DCC combined. (Blair, Wheaton, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwood) (20%)

And that's not counting kids who don't go to Blair from W because of the long commute or because they go to elite private schools (Whitman catchment).

The "prep" whine is a myth. The W kids at SMACS who are getting that 285+ (SMACS median) are mostly getting it by 7th, a whole year ahead of the application deadline.

Anyone getting an A in geometry in 8th grade is getting 285+ or very close to it.

Anyway the whole "prep" complaint is nonsensical. If your kid doesn't like doing more than the minimum amount of work the school assigns in middle school, not even a tiny bit of Khan academy, then why the heck would your kid want to go to SMACS, with an extra course every year, with accelerated courses with more homework?

Do you seriously think that the only reason some kids don't do lots of supplementation and test prep is because they're not hard-working and don't like schoolwork? You must live in a bubble. Just because it's common knowledge in your circles that if you want to get into Blair you've got to play the game and do Khan Academy or whatever to get ahead of what's taught in school, doesn't mean that everyone else knows that. And they shouldn't have to, and families that do know shouldn't get extra advantages because of it.

Do you feel the same way about admissions to UMD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

DP. A year-long MVC, which is appropriate for non-magnet (that which I believe the poster, here, is discussing -- "every school"), allowing coverage of the breadth of that subject and not beholden to an outside curriculum such as College Board's AP, would satisfy the necessary progression in Math for any taking the standard higher-acceleration offered by MCPS:

4th - Math 4/5
5th - Math 5/6
6th - PreAlgebra
7th - Algebra
8th - Honors Geometry
9th - Honors Algebra II
10th - Honors PreCalculus
11th - AP Calculus BC
12th - Multivariable Calculus (MVC)

Depending on how MSDE & MCPS hash out the shift to Integrated Algebra, there could be yet another year of acceleration. That is, if either:

MCPS, after Integrated Algebra 1 in 7th and Integrated Algebra 2 in 8th, offers a newer version of Honors PreCal that incorporates the concepts removed from the current A1/Geo/A2 progression in the IA1/IA2 progression

or

MCPS is allowed to offer an Honors version of IA1/IA2 that reincorporates those concepts at an accelerated pace,

then Math-focused students on the standard higher-acceleration path would be taking AP Calculus BC in 10th grade. They would need two year-long courses afterwards to meet the math-in-every-year MSDE graduation requirement (not to mention to keep touch with the subject).

However, unlike MVC, which very clearly is important to immediately follow Calculus (generally, 101 & 102 in college or AP Calc BC in high school), it is not as important to take classes such as Linear Algebra and Differential Equations after MVC with the same sequential immediacy. In that case, having available AP Statistics, a rather worthy subject in and of itself, if also not one that carries the same sequence-immediacy concern as MVC, would suffice as the 12th grade option for those accelerated, but not in a STEM magnet.

STEM magnets are the proper place for Linear Algebra, Differential Equations and the courses that have been unique to Blair (and Poolesville, if not quite to the same extent) -- the PP's aforementioned "Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis..., and...Advanced Statistics." One hopes that each STEM magnet will offer such an array of courses.

(As an aside: from a sequential standpoint, Linear Algebra, particularly, might go most anywhere; while it would cover topics that could bring additional insight to MVC, that insight can be gleaned from a later taking of LA. Some colleges, and perhaps SMCS, might approach MVC & LA, or MVC, LA & DE, in an integrated fashion, but that is not appropriate to the course load/subject distribution of a non-STEM magnet, where one would expect only one period of Math at a time.)

Every HS, though, should have available, on-site/in-person, MVC in addition to the Math APs:

Ap Precalc -- if preferred to Honors, which is debatable,

AP Calc AB -- for those hitting Calculus without the Math interest/ability to start with BC,

AP Calc BC -- sequential for those having opted for AB and primary for those with the noted Math interest/ability, and

AP Statistics -- both for those more attuned to that than the Calc path and as a Senior-year option for those having completed MVC as a junior.

This is to support MCPS's own standard, accessed across the county, and MSDE's graduation requirements, in addition to any individual student need. As such, there should be no burden of access or efficacy for these classes, such as would be seen with virtual instruction or dual enrollment, and there most certainly should not be such a burden at one non-magnet school where there is not at another non-magnet school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

So the solution shouldn't be to get rid of Blair, but to increase hires of teachers who can teach these schools at every high school in MCPS. I really don't get why they're getting rid of Blair instead of improving on the courses and teachers at other high schools. I completely agree with your point that children in non-magnet programs need more qualified teachers teaching their courses. My son's home school has a mainly chemistry teacher teaching some part of MV Calc. But the solution shouldn't be getting rid of the magnet programs, that really help students interested in STEM. The idea of getting rid of Blair and RM IB is just silly in my opinion.

No one is cares about Blair but a few of you and then you assume the rest of us care. STEM is a general term and that program doesn't meet all kids interests. Mine had no interest in it.

What we are saying is many of the current teachers CAN teach higher level so add more science and math AP, as well as MV and linear algebra. They can alighn the school schedules and offer it virtually too. We have multiple teachers who could teach it but the principal refuses to allow them to.

Poolesville and Blair magnet teachers often have their PhDs - MCPS created programs that attract magnet teachers who could teach at the college level, but who are enthusiastic about working with a cohort of highly able students deeply interested in learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

So the solution shouldn't be to get rid of Blair, but to increase hires of teachers who can teach these schools at every high school in MCPS. I really don't get why they're getting rid of Blair instead of improving on the courses and teachers at other high schools. I completely agree with your point that children in non-magnet programs need more qualified teachers teaching their courses. My son's home school has a mainly chemistry teacher teaching some part of MV Calc. But the solution shouldn't be getting rid of the magnet programs, that really help students interested in STEM. The idea of getting rid of Blair and RM IB is just silly in my opinion.

No one is cares about Blair but a few of you and then you assume the rest of us care. STEM is a general term and that program doesn't meet all kids interests. Mine had no interest in it.

What we are saying is many of the current teachers CAN teach higher level so add more science and math AP, as well as MV and linear algebra. They can alighn the school schedules and offer it virtually too. We have multiple teachers who could teach it but the principal refuses to allow them to.

Dumb kids usually don’t care.

Np

Mine is far from dump but we looked at the classes and they weren't what they wanted. That doesn't make them dumb, it makes them smart not to just do something for the sake of doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

DP. A year-long MVC, which is appropriate for non-magnet (that which I believe the poster, here, is discussing -- "every school"), allowing coverage of the breadth of that subject and not beholden to an outside curriculum such as College Board's AP, would satisfy the necessary progression in Math for any taking the standard higher-acceleration offered by MCPS:

4th - Math 4/5
5th - Math 5/6
6th - PreAlgebra
7th - Algebra
8th - Honors Geometry
9th - Honors Algebra II
10th - Honors PreCalculus
11th - AP Calculus BC
12th - Multivariable Calculus (MVC)

Depending on how MSDE & MCPS hash out the shift to Integrated Algebra, there could be yet another year of acceleration. That is, if either:

MCPS, after Integrated Algebra 1 in 7th and Integrated Algebra 2 in 8th, offers a newer version of Honors PreCal that incorporates the concepts removed from the current A1/Geo/A2 progression in the IA1/IA2 progression

or

MCPS is allowed to offer an Honors version of IA1/IA2 that reincorporates those concepts at an accelerated pace,

then Math-focused students on the standard higher-acceleration path would be taking AP Calculus BC in 10th grade. They would need two year-long courses afterwards to meet the math-in-every-year MSDE graduation requirement (not to mention to keep touch with the subject).

However, unlike MVC, which very clearly is important to immediately follow Calculus (generally, 101 & 102 in college or AP Calc BC in high school), it is not as important to take classes such as Linear Algebra and Differential Equations after MVC with the same sequential immediacy. In that case, having available AP Statistics, a rather worthy subject in and of itself, if also not one that carries the same sequence-immediacy concern as MVC, would suffice as the 12th grade option for those accelerated, but not in a STEM magnet.

STEM magnets are the proper place for Linear Algebra, Differential Equations and the courses that have been unique to Blair (and Poolesville, if not quite to the same extent) -- the PP's aforementioned "Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis..., and...Advanced Statistics." One hopes that each STEM magnet will offer such an array of courses.

(As an aside: from a sequential standpoint, Linear Algebra, particularly, might go most anywhere; while it would cover topics that could bring additional insight to MVC, that insight can be gleaned from a later taking of LA. Some colleges, and perhaps SMCS, might approach MVC & LA, or MVC, LA & DE, in an integrated fashion, but that is not appropriate to the course load/subject distribution of a non-STEM magnet, where one would expect only one period of Math at a time.)

Every HS, though, should have available, on-site/in-person, MVC in addition to the Math APs:

Ap Precalc -- if preferred to Honors, which is debatable,

AP Calc AB -- for those hitting Calculus without the Math interest/ability to start with BC,

AP Calc BC -- sequential for those having opted for AB and primary for those with the noted Math interest/ability, and

AP Statistics -- both for those more attuned to that than the Calc path and as a Senior-year option for those having completed MVC as a junior.

This is to support MCPS's own standard, accessed across the county, and MSDE's graduation requirements, in addition to any individual student need. As such, there should be no burden of access or efficacy for these classes, such as would be seen with virtual instruction or dual enrollment, and there most certainly should not be such a burden at one non-magnet school where there is not at another non-magnet school.

Most schools have AP Calc AB, BC and Statistics. Most don't have AP Precal, which is a new AP class.

They should offer all those plus MV and Linear Algebra. Dual enrollment doesn't work for kids with after-school activities or jobs or lack of transportation. MCPS is clear they are not bring back virtual instruction except when it suits them and this doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

DP. A year-long MVC, which is appropriate for non-magnet (that which I believe the poster, here, is discussing -- "every school"), allowing coverage of the breadth of that subject and not beholden to an outside curriculum such as College Board's AP, would satisfy the necessary progression in Math for any taking the standard higher-acceleration offered by MCPS:

4th - Math 4/5
5th - Math 5/6
6th - PreAlgebra
7th - Algebra
8th - Honors Geometry
9th - Honors Algebra II
10th - Honors PreCalculus
11th - AP Calculus BC
12th - Multivariable Calculus (MVC)

Depending on how MSDE & MCPS hash out the shift to Integrated Algebra, there could be yet another year of acceleration. That is, if either:

MCPS, after Integrated Algebra 1 in 7th and Integrated Algebra 2 in 8th, offers a newer version of Honors PreCal that incorporates the concepts removed from the current A1/Geo/A2 progression in the IA1/IA2 progression

or

MCPS is allowed to offer an Honors version of IA1/IA2 that reincorporates those concepts at an accelerated pace,

then Math-focused students on the standard higher-acceleration path would be taking AP Calculus BC in 10th grade. They would need two year-long courses afterwards to meet the math-in-every-year MSDE graduation requirement (not to mention to keep touch with the subject).

However, unlike MVC, which very clearly is important to immediately follow Calculus (generally, 101 & 102 in college or AP Calc BC in high school), it is not as important to take classes such as Linear Algebra and Differential Equations after MVC with the same sequential immediacy. In that case, having available AP Statistics, a rather worthy subject in and of itself, if also not one that carries the same sequence-immediacy concern as MVC, would suffice as the 12th grade option for those accelerated, but not in a STEM magnet.

STEM magnets are the proper place for Linear Algebra, Differential Equations and the courses that have been unique to Blair (and Poolesville, if not quite to the same extent) -- the PP's aforementioned "Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis..., and...Advanced Statistics." One hopes that each STEM magnet will offer such an array of courses.

(As an aside: from a sequential standpoint, Linear Algebra, particularly, might go most anywhere; while it would cover topics that could bring additional insight to MVC, that insight can be gleaned from a later taking of LA. Some colleges, and perhaps SMCS, might approach MVC & LA, or MVC, LA & DE, in an integrated fashion, but that is not appropriate to the course load/subject distribution of a non-STEM magnet, where one would expect only one period of Math at a time.)

Every HS, though, should have available, on-site/in-person, MVC in addition to the Math APs:

Ap Precalc -- if preferred to Honors, which is debatable,

AP Calc AB -- for those hitting Calculus without the Math interest/ability to start with BC,

AP Calc BC -- sequential for those having opted for AB and primary for those with the noted Math interest/ability, and

AP Statistics -- both for those more attuned to that than the Calc path and as a Senior-year option for those having completed MVC as a junior.

This is to support MCPS's own standard, accessed across the county, and MSDE's graduation requirements, in addition to any individual student need. As such, there should be no burden of access or efficacy for these classes, such as would be seen with virtual instruction or dual enrollment, and there most certainly should not be such a burden at one non-magnet school where there is not at another non-magnet school.

This would work with Algebra in 7th, but some feeder schools start Algebra in 6th, so there needs to be one more option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of ya'll really need to settle down. Great teachers exist outside of the magnet programs. One of my kids not at a magnet Algebra teacher had a masters in math from John Hopkins. My other kid's MS math teacher (different school) was certified to teach math at the MS and HS level and was finishing up an Education Leadership doctorate.

Some teach a schools that are closer to where they live, others want to influence a certain demographic, and others are just happy at their school.

Will there likely need to be some hiring and training, sure, but if they finalize things in short order, like by February, they will have at least a whole year to get that done. Heck they could make it part of the recruiting strategy now.

No one said we don't have some great teachers, but some people want advanced math in *every* HS. Finding good teachers to teach really advanced math for every HS is going to be very difficult to find, not to mention the fact that in some schools there won't be enough demand for such classes to fill the classroom. Not good use of taxpayer $.

They only need one teacher for anything past bc. We have several teachers who could teach it. You just need Mv and linear algebra at every school. So, that’s two extra classes beyond what is provided now.

Not true... At Blair, math classes include Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis (This is the course after MV calc and Lin Alg), and an Advanced Statistics Class (not to be confused with AP Stats). Similar things hold for science classes. As you can clearly see, it will be impossible to implement all these classes to the level they are taught at at Blair across the regional programs.

You don't need all those. You just need MV and Linear Algebra at every school, so there is enough math to fulfill requirements. You keep pushing Blair but many of our kids have no interest in Blair but need more academic classes than are being offered. Pushing Blair is silly when it only takes 100 students. You are pushing needing more Blairs but even if there were more, my kids wouldn't choose it due to the rigid curriculum and distance.

DP. A year-long MVC, which is appropriate for non-magnet (that which I believe the poster, here, is discussing -- "every school"), allowing coverage of the breadth of that subject and not beholden to an outside curriculum such as College Board's AP, would satisfy the necessary progression in Math for any taking the standard higher-acceleration offered by MCPS:

4th - Math 4/5
5th - Math 5/6
6th - PreAlgebra
7th - Algebra
8th - Honors Geometry
9th - Honors Algebra II
10th - Honors PreCalculus
11th - AP Calculus BC
12th - Multivariable Calculus (MVC)

Depending on how MSDE & MCPS hash out the shift to Integrated Algebra, there could be yet another year of acceleration. That is, if either:

MCPS, after Integrated Algebra 1 in 7th and Integrated Algebra 2 in 8th, offers a newer version of Honors PreCal that incorporates the concepts removed from the current A1/Geo/A2 progression in the IA1/IA2 progression

or

MCPS is allowed to offer an Honors version of IA1/IA2 that reincorporates those concepts at an accelerated pace,

then Math-focused students on the standard higher-acceleration path would be taking AP Calculus BC in 10th grade. They would need two year-long courses afterwards to meet the math-in-every-year MSDE graduation requirement (not to mention to keep touch with the subject).

However, unlike MVC, which very clearly is important to immediately follow Calculus (generally, 101 & 102 in college or AP Calc BC in high school), it is not as important to take classes such as Linear Algebra and Differential Equations after MVC with the same sequential immediacy. In that case, having available AP Statistics, a rather worthy subject in and of itself, if also not one that carries the same sequence-immediacy concern as MVC, would suffice as the 12th grade option for those accelerated, but not in a STEM magnet.

STEM magnets are the proper place for Linear Algebra, Differential Equations and the courses that have been unique to Blair (and Poolesville, if not quite to the same extent) -- the PP's aforementioned "Logic, Discrete Mathematics, Advanced Geometry, Origins of Math, Complex Analysis..., and...Advanced Statistics." One hopes that each STEM magnet will offer such an array of courses.

(As an aside: from a sequential standpoint, Linear Algebra, particularly, might go most anywhere; while it would cover topics that could bring additional insight to MVC, that insight can be gleaned from a later taking of LA. Some colleges, and perhaps SMCS, might approach MVC & LA, or MVC, LA & DE, in an integrated fashion, but that is not appropriate to the course load/subject distribution of a non-STEM magnet, where one would expect only one period of Math at a time.)

Every HS, though, should have available, on-site/in-person, MVC in addition to the Math APs:

Ap Precalc -- if preferred to Honors, which is debatable,

AP Calc AB -- for those hitting Calculus without the Math interest/ability to start with BC,

AP Calc BC -- sequential for those having opted for AB and primary for those with the noted Math interest/ability, and

AP Statistics -- both for those more attuned to that than the Calc path and as a Senior-year option for those having completed MVC as a junior.

This is to support MCPS's own standard, accessed across the county, and MSDE's graduation requirements, in addition to any individual student need. As such, there should be no burden of access or efficacy for these classes, such as would be seen with virtual instruction or dual enrollment, and there most certainly should not be such a burden at one non-magnet school where there is not at another non-magnet school.

This would work with Algebra in 7th, but some feeder schools start Algebra in 6th, so there needs to be one more option.

Understanding the case (an additional in-person class, like Linear Algebra or Differential Equations for those hitting Calc BC in 9th, and then needing MVC, AP Stats plus one more for 10th/11th/12th), I think that support, there, must come in the form of admittance to the regional STEM magnet. If a student chooses not to attend that magnet, that would be a choice against that extra high-level in-person Math class, with dual enrollment then an option.

As previously noted, Algebra in 6th, while made available by some school administrations to cohorts of students after campaigns by area families, is not part of the standard higher-acceleration pathway supported by MCPS. Providing later courses that support the standard is a different animal than providing later courses for an exception granted to a community.

This is separate from the grade advancement offered within the system to individual students (perhaps a handful across the system each year, per MCPS AEI) who demonstrate truly exceptional mathematical ability, the associated needs of which are beyond that which can be provided with standard acceleration/enrichment options. When offered, families of those children are made aware that the higher-level Math classes that might be needed in later years may have to be accessed via the SMCS magnet or by dual enrollment.

[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:The worst thing about this is the loss of the incredible magnet teachers that we will have at both the RM IB and Blair SMCS. My son is a student at the Blair Magnet program, and their math teacher has a PHD in math from Yale! Other teachers are equally qualified and hold PHDs from many renowned universities in the country. There is no way that these teachers will opt for teaching county magnet programs, as they are more than qualified to teach college level classes with much more pay as well. They stay because they enjoy teaching a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. The loss of teachers will be something we won't be able to replace, even after Taylor is gone.

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here, about the teachers and the future students.

Not that pp, but my child also goes to the same program, and more than one teachers told their personal stories to students about why they chose to stay in Blair SMACS, and the reasons are highly similar to what described above. They will choose to leave the magnet as it's not rewarding anymore to themselves, and practically many of the current courses will not exist anymore due to lack of enrollment.

If true, those teachers are not great in reasoning then, and perhaps not as incredible as some PPs describe. They’re assuming students in the future regional magnet will not be a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. We don’t know the criteria of the regional program, so we don’t know what those students will be like. If they maintain a hard cutoff of 90% MAP (“A” students by objective measure), the type of students should be the same. Incredible teachers are good at reasoning and not emotionally reactive.

It has been repeatedly cited in this forum that the median MAP-M score for the admitted students is somewhere around 285, which is >99% for Grade 12 according to NWEA breakdown. More than 50% of the current SMACS students came from Churchill and Wootton, and the 3rd is WJ. Many admitted students had won state or national STEM prizes before joining SMACS. What makes believe that the new regional program wouldn't be significantly watered down?

The fact that most of the current students came from just 3 schools suggests that it should be no problem to fill the regional programs with kids from 4-5 schools each, right? The admission standards might have to be a tad bit lower if the distribution of smart kids isn't exactly equal between those 3 schools and the others in the county, but presumably that's a pretty small difference.

Is this a joke?
It's astronomically different. What is your explanation for why almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies for SMACS, while students from Rockville/Potomac/Bethesda bus in from far away?

SMACS already struggles to fill upper level courses, offering many electives only once every 2 years.

Splitting Blair SMACS into 3 would eliminate those classes.

The Functions (advanced/accelerated Alg2/Precalculus) class has 20 kids. If you split those kids across 2-3 regions, what happens to them?

Yes, there are students that would thrive in regional STEM programs that enhance their current home school offerings with more AP options and some electives. No, no one is helped by shattering the current SMACS into 4 parts and pretending that those kids are well-matched to programs that run courses at half the academic pace.

What on earth makes you think that "almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies"? There's like 30+ Silver Spring kids who actually attend Blair SMCS every year right now, plus presumably many others who get "beat out' by richer kids from elsewhere in the county who can juice their MAP scores in ways most Silver Spring families can't. Why would the difference in the number of smart, motivated kids from rich schools and poor schools be "astronomically different"?

37 in total from Blair catchment: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf

I agree with you that switching to regional model might encourage more admitted students from, e.g., Whiteman, to attend Blair. But the overall number of "qualified" students is undoubtedly going to reduce significantly. Of course you can always lower down the qualification threshold.

Blair is not the only school in Silver Spring. And if the qualification threshold isn't based on the intelligence and potential of the students, but is just based on getting super-high MAP scores which can be and frequently are gamed/skewed, then probably it should be lowered so that the smartest kids don't get blocked out by "merely bright" hard workers with rich parents who are good at test prep. But that doesn't mean the standards would be decreased-- arguably you would get even higher numbers of the smartest kids in that way.

CoGAT was used pre-pandemic as one key metrics for admission, and I remember there were data published somewhere before lottery was introduced to CES and MS magnets. The data clearly told the same story. People like you were furious back then that so many admitted kids were Asian and were from W's, so the lottery was pushed out by furious parents who can't acknowledge that their snowflakes aren't the genius. Now look at the degradation of MS magnets.

The CES programs are, by definition, regional. By and large, W-kids were being compared against other W-kids. With a couple of exceptions, the demographics under consideration were pretty similar. The fact that you didn't know that makes me question your entire post.

DP
The W part was clearly a reference to MS magnets.

CES is a lottery, as PP said.

https://inte.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/specialprograms/elementary/highly-gifted-centersnew/

[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:The worst thing about this is the loss of the incredible magnet teachers that we will have at both the RM IB and Blair SMCS. My son is a student at the Blair Magnet program, and their math teacher has a PHD in math from Yale! Other teachers are equally qualified and hold PHDs from many renowned universities in the country. There is no way that these teachers will opt for teaching county magnet programs, as they are more than qualified to teach college level classes with much more pay as well. They stay because they enjoy teaching a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. The loss of teachers will be something we won't be able to replace, even after Taylor is gone.

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here, about the teachers and the future students.

Not that pp, but my child also goes to the same program, and more than one teachers told their personal stories to students about why they chose to stay in Blair SMACS, and the reasons are highly similar to what described above. They will choose to leave the magnet as it's not rewarding anymore to themselves, and practically many of the current courses will not exist anymore due to lack of enrollment.

If true, those teachers are not great in reasoning then, and perhaps not as incredible as some PPs describe. They’re assuming students in the future regional magnet will not be a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. We don’t know the criteria of the regional program, so we don’t know what those students will be like. If they maintain a hard cutoff of 90% MAP (“A” students by objective measure), the type of students should be the same. Incredible teachers are good at reasoning and not emotionally reactive.

It has been repeatedly cited in this forum that the median MAP-M score for the admitted students is somewhere around 285, which is >99% for Grade 12 according to NWEA breakdown. More than 50% of the current SMACS students came from Churchill and Wootton, and the 3rd is WJ. Many admitted students had won state or national STEM prizes before joining SMACS. What makes believe that the new regional program wouldn't be significantly watered down?

The fact that most of the current students came from just 3 schools suggests that it should be no problem to fill the regional programs with kids from 4-5 schools each, right? The admission standards might have to be a tad bit lower if the distribution of smart kids isn't exactly equal between those 3 schools and the others in the county, but presumably that's a pretty small difference.

Is this a joke?
It's astronomically different. What is your explanation for why almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies for SMACS, while students from Rockville/Potomac/Bethesda bus in from far away?

SMACS already struggles to fill upper level courses, offering many electives only once every 2 years.

Splitting Blair SMACS into 3 would eliminate those classes.

The Functions (advanced/accelerated Alg2/Precalculus) class has 20 kids. If you split those kids across 2-3 regions, what happens to them?

Yes, there are students that would thrive in regional STEM programs that enhance their current home school offerings with more AP options and some electives. No, no one is helped by shattering the current SMACS into 4 parts and pretending that those kids are well-matched to programs that run courses at half the academic pace.

What on earth makes you think that "almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies"? There's like 30+ Silver Spring kids who actually attend Blair SMCS every year right now, plus presumably many others who get "beat out' by richer kids from elsewhere in the county who can juice their MAP scores in ways most Silver Spring families can't. Why would the difference in the number of smart, motivated kids from rich schools and poor schools be "astronomically different"?

37 in total from Blair catchment: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf

I agree with you that switching to regional model might encourage more admitted students from, e.g., Whiteman, to attend Blair. But the overall number of "qualified" students is undoubtedly going to reduce significantly. Of course you can always lower down the qualification threshold.

Blair is not the only school in Silver Spring. And if the qualification threshold isn't based on the intelligence and potential of the students, but is just based on getting super-high MAP scores which can be and frequently are gamed/skewed, then probably it should be lowered so that the smartest kids don't get blocked out by "merely bright" hard workers with rich parents who are good at test prep. But that doesn't mean the standards would be decreased-- arguably you would get even higher numbers of the smartest kids in that way.

The top feeders to Blair, by catchment, are:

1. Wootton (25%)
2. Churchill (20%)
3. The entire DCC combined. (Blair, Wheaton, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwood) (20%)

And that's not counting kids who don't go to Blair from W because of the long commute or because they go to elite private schools (Whitman catchment).

The "prep" whine is a myth. The W kids at SMACS who are getting that 285+ (SMACS median) are mostly getting it by 7th, a whole year ahead of the application deadline.

Anyone getting an A in geometry in 8th grade is getting 285+ or very close to it.

Anyway the whole "prep" complaint is nonsensical. If your kid doesn't like doing more than the minimum amount of work the school assigns in middle school, not even a tiny bit of Khan academy, then why the heck would your kid want to go to SMACS, with an extra course every year, with accelerated courses with more homework?

Do you seriously think that the only reason some kids don't do lots of supplementation and test prep is because they're not hard-working and don't like schoolwork? You must live in a bubble. Just because it's common knowledge in your circles that if you want to get into Blair you've got to play the game and do Khan Academy or whatever to get ahead of what's taught in school, doesn't mean that everyone else knows that. And they shouldn't have to, and families that do know shouldn't get extra advantages because of it.

The question remains:
If the student and parent don't want the student to learn more than they are already learning in home MS, and is declining existing free and easily accessible opportunities, why would that family want to put the student on a bus to the Magnet? What's the benefit? Just to say you are a member of the elite club? For the free day care on the bus ride?

Just because you don't have it doesn't mean you need it or would enjoy it.

Does anyone even want this? The "prep" complainers are advocating on behalf of some mythical non-existent genius with neglectful parents who refuse to expose their child to education that isn't automatically delivered, don't encourage their child to do simple things like go beyond the assigned work in the free IXL that is already part of school, yet would apply to the Magnet and consent to the kid attending.

Can you name one person who will publicly state that they didn't get into the Magnet but wanted to go, and had a low MAP score, but could raise it if they bothered to study a little math beyond the assigned work, which they don't want to do?
This is different from people not getting in just because they are in the big group on the bubble and the space is limited. Of course more seats would be better.

[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:The worst thing about this is the loss of the incredible magnet teachers that we will have at both the RM IB and Blair SMCS. My son is a student at the Blair Magnet program, and their math teacher has a PHD in math from Yale! Other teachers are equally qualified and hold PHDs from many renowned universities in the country. There is no way that these teachers will opt for teaching county magnet programs, as they are more than qualified to teach college level classes with much more pay as well. They stay because they enjoy teaching a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. The loss of teachers will be something we won't be able to replace, even after Taylor is gone.

Seems like you are making a lot of assumptions here, about the teachers and the future students.

Not that pp, but my child also goes to the same program, and more than one teachers told their personal stories to students about why they chose to stay in Blair SMACS, and the reasons are highly similar to what described above. They will choose to leave the magnet as it's not rewarding anymore to themselves, and practically many of the current courses will not exist anymore due to lack of enrollment.

If true, those teachers are not great in reasoning then, and perhaps not as incredible as some PPs describe. They’re assuming students in the future regional magnet will not be a group of highly motivated students who love to learn. We don’t know the criteria of the regional program, so we don’t know what those students will be like. If they maintain a hard cutoff of 90% MAP (“A” students by objective measure), the type of students should be the same. Incredible teachers are good at reasoning and not emotionally reactive.

It has been repeatedly cited in this forum that the median MAP-M score for the admitted students is somewhere around 285, which is >99% for Grade 12 according to NWEA breakdown. More than 50% of the current SMACS students came from Churchill and Wootton, and the 3rd is WJ. Many admitted students had won state or national STEM prizes before joining SMACS. What makes believe that the new regional program wouldn't be significantly watered down?

The fact that most of the current students came from just 3 schools suggests that it should be no problem to fill the regional programs with kids from 4-5 schools each, right? The admission standards might have to be a tad bit lower if the distribution of smart kids isn't exactly equal between those 3 schools and the others in the county, but presumably that's a pretty small difference.

Is this a joke?
It's astronomically different. What is your explanation for why almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies for SMACS, while students from Rockville/Potomac/Bethesda bus in from far away?

SMACS already struggles to fill upper level courses, offering many electives only once every 2 years.

Splitting Blair SMACS into 3 would eliminate those classes.

The Functions (advanced/accelerated Alg2/Precalculus) class has 20 kids. If you split those kids across 2-3 regions, what happens to them?

Yes, there are students that would thrive in regional STEM programs that enhance their current home school offerings with more AP options and some electives. No, no one is helped by shattering the current SMACS into 4 parts and pretending that those kids are well-matched to programs that run courses at half the academic pace.

What on earth makes you think that "almost no one in Silver Spring qualifies"? There's like 30+ Silver Spring kids who actually attend Blair SMCS every year right now, plus presumably many others who get "beat out' by richer kids from elsewhere in the county who can juice their MAP scores in ways most Silver Spring families can't. Why would the difference in the number of smart, motivated kids from rich schools and poor schools be "astronomically different"?

37 in total from Blair catchment: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ56678E2B/$file/Attachment%20D%20SY2025%20Student%20Enrollment%20Countywide%20Programs%20250724.pdf

I agree with you that switching to regional model might encourage more admitted students from, e.g., Whiteman, to attend Blair. But the overall number of "qualified" students is undoubtedly going to reduce significantly. Of course you can always lower down the qualification threshold.

Blair is not the only school in Silver Spring. And if the qualification threshold isn't based on the intelligence and potential of the students, but is just based on getting super-high MAP scores which can be and frequently are gamed/skewed, then probably it should be lowered so that the smartest kids don't get blocked out by "merely bright" hard workers with rich parents who are good at test prep. But that doesn't mean the standards would be decreased-- arguably you would get even higher numbers of the smartest kids in that way.

The top feeders to Blair, by catchment, are:

1. Wootton (25%)
2. Churchill (20%)
3. The entire DCC combined. (Blair, Wheaton, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwood) (20%)

And that's not counting kids who don't go to Blair from W because of the long commute or because they go to elite private schools (Whitman catchment).

The "prep" whine is a myth. The W kids at SMACS who are getting that 285+ (SMACS median) are mostly getting it by 7th, a whole year ahead of the application deadline.

Anyone getting an A in geometry in 8th grade is getting 285+ or very close to it.

Anyway the whole "prep" complaint is nonsensical. If your kid doesn't like doing more than the minimum amount of work the school assigns in middle school, not even a tiny bit of Khan academy, then why the heck would your kid want to go to SMACS, with an extra course every year, with accelerated courses with more homework?

Do you seriously think that the only reason some kids don't do lots of supplementation and test prep is because they're not hard-working and don't like schoolwork? You must live in a bubble. Just because it's common knowledge in your circles that if you want to get into Blair you've got to play the game and do Khan Academy or whatever to get ahead of what's taught in school, doesn't mean that everyone else knows that. And they shouldn't have to, and families that do know shouldn't get extra advantages because of it.

Teachers are perfectly capable of mentoring smart, but disadvantaged kids. That happened to lots of us. And frankly, those kids have lots of time in class with Chromebooks if they want to do well.

There a contingent of people who believe that education is something delivered for consumption, like government cheese or a cell phone, not an opportunity to do work. so they ignore the opportunities that already exist. The same people probably complain that poor kids are physically weak because they can't afford gym memberships.

I'm 100% in favor of longer school hours and more staffing and "magnet" programs to separate kids who are willing to learn from kids who need their attitude adjusted first, to help kids (and parents) with parents who aren't able to support their kids education. But that's not what SMACS is for. That's why parent who know are advocating for keeping the few wildly successful programs that already exist, while ADDING more programs. The spoiled rich W families are happy to pay more taxes for more public education, because we don't want to live in a world full of uneducated people continuing the cycle of poverty that leads to increased violence, crime, and MAGA.