Gifted & talented programs and magnet school opportunities in the public schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Actually, that's the reason MCPS is better than them, and dominating them in competitions. MCPS doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket, they're spread out. Reason why MCPS has lot more schools that can compete in competitions, while only TJ in FCPS can really compete.

Ahh? Where did you get this information? Based on my kid's experience (one STEM subject at national competition level), there are constantly some FCPS kids not from TJ ranking high in those competitions. I personally know at least two chose to decline TJ offers because they'd like to have more extra time for ECs. If a kid is at the top 1% level and understands the trade-offs at the end of 8th grade, that kid can be successful no matter where they go. The kids with high aptitudes and family resources are not impacted much either. It's the ones that have aptitudes but living in low-ranking HS regions/with limited family support and do not have a clear picture what they want that are going to be left behind if cancelling countywide SMACS/IB programs. So let's talk about equity.

[Anonymous]

All this arguing for giving an ultra-tiny minority of students some costly classes at taxpayer expense. Those well-resourced families should go private or do dual enrollment.

Expand access to the six regions, or eliminate the programs and just offer AP/IB at each HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this arguing for giving an ultra-tiny minority of students some costly classes at taxpayer expense. Those well-resourced families should go private or do dual enrollment.

Expand access to the six regions, or eliminate the programs and just offer AP/IB at each HS.

PP please look my response right above you. Not every top 1% kid has family resources, and public schools should serve the need for everyone, not just the one on the lower-end of a spectrum.

"Equity" is not created by dragging everyone down to the mediocre level (unfortunately this is exactly what's been happening in the past decade or so and why American education declines so fast).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this arguing for giving an ultra-tiny minority of students some costly classes at taxpayer expense. Those well-resourced families should go private or do dual enrollment.

Expand access to the six regions, or eliminate the programs and just offer AP/IB at each HS.

The cost of bussing due water downed programs is not worth it. End all the magnets. Everyone goes to their assigned school. I am sorry to see Blair end it's run but it does not align with the current county philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Actually, that's the reason MCPS is better than them, and dominating them in competitions. MCPS doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket, they're spread out. Reason why MCPS has lot more schools that can compete in competitions, while only TJ in FCPS can really compete.

Ahh? Where did you get this information? Based on my kid's experience (one STEM subject at national competition level), there are constantly some FCPS kids not from TJ ranking high in those competitions. I personally know at least two chose to decline TJ offers because they'd like to have more extra time for ECs. If a kid is at the top 1% level and understands the trade-offs at the end of 8th grade, that kid can be successful no matter where they go. The kids with high aptitudes and family resources are not impacted much either. It's the ones that have aptitudes but living in low-ranking HS regions/with limited family support and do not have a clear picture what they want that are going to be left behind if cancelling countywide SMACS/IB programs. So let's talk about equity.

Of course from time to time you may see some kids from other FCPS schools ranking in those competitions, but not constantly.
It's not for no reason that a few years ago the Department of Energy tweeted the question (paraphrasing): "Would any other school besides TJ represent the state of Virginia this year?" In the national Science bowl competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Actually, that's the reason MCPS is better than them, and dominating them in competitions. MCPS doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket, they're spread out. Reason why MCPS has lot more schools that can compete in competitions, while only TJ in FCPS can really compete.

Ahh? Where did you get this information? Based on my kid's experience (one STEM subject at national competition level), there are constantly some FCPS kids not from TJ ranking high in those competitions. I personally know at least two chose to decline TJ offers because they'd like to have more extra time for ECs. If a kid is at the top 1% level and understands the trade-offs at the end of 8th grade, that kid can be successful no matter where they go. The kids with high aptitudes and family resources are not impacted much either. It's the ones that have aptitudes but living in low-ranking HS regions/with limited family support and do not have a clear picture what they want that are going to be left behind if cancelling countywide SMACS/IB programs. So let's talk about equity.

Do you live in MoCo or Fairfax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

Sounds like you should support increased taxation to serve both those needing general advancement/differentiation and those needing radically advanced coursework.

And, of course, support the same to achieve the best means of identifying (early) the ability that might require that far more differentiated program (rather than those who simply test well from prep, not that there isn't overlap between the two groups), ensuring that it is nurtured with public funding so that these programs remain truly accessible across economic circumstance.

For those pointing to Fairfax/TJ, why should we think that there are not a proportionate number of MoCo students that would show need for this kind of program? There would be more than twice the number currently admitted across both SMCS sites. And that's with TJ clearly oversibscribed. One could point to the fact that Blair SMCS has even higher-level offerings than those at TJ, but there is the liklihood that among any hundred admitted there would be enough who would rise with the offered curriculum to support at least single sections of those courses.

Does Fairfax county tax more than Montgomery county? No. Instead of increasing taxes, we need to focus on fiscal responsibility and reduce wasteful spending MCPS currently has with such bloated central office.

That's been debunked. Fairfax County's per-student operational spend is all of three quarters of a percent lower than MoCo's. The "bloated central office" comparison comes from the difference in the way FCPS has categorized many centrally-managed staff with roughly equivalent functions as those at at MCPS as school-based.

Each system could improve management to control costs. MoCo's higher tax rate, though, has much more to do with non-education-oriented spending, giveaways, etc.

It seems like Montgomery County residents are getting a less favorable deal compared to Fairfax. Fairfax pays less in taxes but offers both centralized county-wide magnets and regional AAP (Advanced Academic Program) centers. They appear to deliver better educational quality and equity with fewer resources. So why is MCPS consistently less competent? ”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

Sounds like you should support increased taxation to serve both those needing general advancement/differentiation and those needing radically advanced coursework.

And, of course, support the same to achieve the best means of identifying (early) the ability that might require that far more differentiated program (rather than those who simply test well from prep, not that there isn't overlap between the two groups), ensuring that it is nurtured with public funding so that these programs remain truly accessible across economic circumstance.

For those pointing to Fairfax/TJ, why should we think that there are not a proportionate number of MoCo students that would show need for this kind of program? There would be more than twice the number currently admitted across both SMCS sites. And that's with TJ clearly oversibscribed. One could point to the fact that Blair SMCS has even higher-level offerings than those at TJ, but there is the liklihood that among any hundred admitted there would be enough who would rise with the offered curriculum to support at least single sections of those courses.

Does Fairfax county tax more than Montgomery county? No. Instead of increasing taxes, we need to focus on fiscal responsibility and reduce wasteful spending MCPS currently has with such bloated central office.

That's been debunked. Fairfax County's per-student operational spend is all of three quarters of a percent lower than MoCo's. The "bloated central office" comparison comes from the difference in the way FCPS has categorized many centrally-managed staff with roughly equivalent functions as those at at MCPS as school-based.

Each system could improve management to control costs. MoCo's higher tax rate, though, has much more to do with non-education-oriented spending, giveaways, etc.

It seems like Montgomery County residents are getting a less favorable deal compared to Fairfax. Fairfax pays less in taxes but offers both centralized county-wide magnets and regional AAP (Advanced Academic Program) centers. They appear to deliver better educational quality and equity with fewer resources. So why is MCPS consistently less competent? ”

Because this is MCPS. Keep doing stupid initiatives (including this one). Totally f’ed idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Actually, that's the reason MCPS is better than them, and dominating them in competitions. MCPS doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket, they're spread out. Reason why MCPS has lot more schools that can compete in competitions, while only TJ in FCPS can really compete.

Ahh? Where did you get this information? Based on my kid's experience (one STEM subject at national competition level), there are constantly some FCPS kids not from TJ ranking high in those competitions. I personally know at least two chose to decline TJ offers because they'd like to have more extra time for ECs. If a kid is at the top 1% level and understands the trade-offs at the end of 8th grade, that kid can be successful no matter where they go. The kids with high aptitudes and family resources are not impacted much either. It's the ones that have aptitudes but living in low-ranking HS regions/with limited family support and do not have a clear picture what they want that are going to be left behind if cancelling countywide SMACS/IB programs. So let's talk about equity.

Are you making the claim that kids with "high aptitudes with limited family support" are well-represented in countywide programs? Because that is not at all my experience as a parent in one of those programs, nor was it the findings of the one time MCPS looked into this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

Sounds like you should support increased taxation to serve both those needing general advancement/differentiation and those needing radically advanced coursework.

And, of course, support the same to achieve the best means of identifying (early) the ability that might require that far more differentiated program (rather than those who simply test well from prep, not that there isn't overlap between the two groups), ensuring that it is nurtured with public funding so that these programs remain truly accessible across economic circumstance.

For those pointing to Fairfax/TJ, why should we think that there are not a proportionate number of MoCo students that would show need for this kind of program? There would be more than twice the number currently admitted across both SMCS sites. And that's with TJ clearly oversibscribed. One could point to the fact that Blair SMCS has even higher-level offerings than those at TJ, but there is the liklihood that among any hundred admitted there would be enough who would rise with the offered curriculum to support at least single sections of those courses.

Does Fairfax county tax more than Montgomery county? No. Instead of increasing taxes, we need to focus on fiscal responsibility and reduce wasteful spending MCPS currently has with such bloated central office.

That's been debunked. Fairfax County's per-student operational spend is all of three quarters of a percent lower than MoCo's. The "bloated central office" comparison comes from the difference in the way FCPS has categorized many centrally-managed staff with roughly equivalent functions as those at at MCPS as school-based.

Each system could improve management to control costs. MoCo's higher tax rate, though, has much more to do with non-education-oriented spending, giveaways, etc.

It seems like Montgomery County residents are getting a less favorable deal compared to Fairfax. Fairfax pays less in taxes but offers both centralized county-wide magnets and regional AAP (Advanced Academic Program) centers. They appear to deliver better educational quality and equity with fewer resources. So why is MCPS consistently less competent? ”

Huh?? Which magnets?
There's only one magnet is Fairfax: TJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

Sounds like you should support increased taxation to serve both those needing general advancement/differentiation and those needing radically advanced coursework.

And, of course, support the same to achieve the best means of identifying (early) the ability that might require that far more differentiated program (rather than those who simply test well from prep, not that there isn't overlap between the two groups), ensuring that it is nurtured with public funding so that these programs remain truly accessible across economic circumstance.

For those pointing to Fairfax/TJ, why should we think that there are not a proportionate number of MoCo students that would show need for this kind of program? There would be more than twice the number currently admitted across both SMCS sites. And that's with TJ clearly oversibscribed. One could point to the fact that Blair SMCS has even higher-level offerings than those at TJ, but there is the liklihood that among any hundred admitted there would be enough who would rise with the offered curriculum to support at least single sections of those courses.

Does Fairfax county tax more than Montgomery county? No. Instead of increasing taxes, we need to focus on fiscal responsibility and reduce wasteful spending MCPS currently has with such bloated central office.

That's been debunked. Fairfax County's per-student operational spend is all of three quarters of a percent lower than MoCo's. The "bloated central office" comparison comes from the difference in the way FCPS has categorized many centrally-managed staff with roughly equivalent functions as those at at MCPS as school-based.

Each system could improve management to control costs. MoCo's higher tax rate, though, has much more to do with non-education-oriented spending, giveaways, etc.

It seems like Montgomery County residents are getting a less favorable deal compared to Fairfax. Fairfax pays less in taxes but offers both centralized county-wide magnets and regional AAP (Advanced Academic Program) centers. They appear to deliver better educational quality and equity with fewer resources. So why is MCPS consistently less competent? ”

LOL
They don't, not even close to MCPS magnets.
Do y'all idiots actually know what you’re talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

Sounds like you should support increased taxation to serve both those needing general advancement/differentiation and those needing radically advanced coursework.

And, of course, support the same to achieve the best means of identifying (early) the ability that might require that far more differentiated program (rather than those who simply test well from prep, not that there isn't overlap between the two groups), ensuring that it is nurtured with public funding so that these programs remain truly accessible across economic circumstance.

For those pointing to Fairfax/TJ, why should we think that there are not a proportionate number of MoCo students that would show need for this kind of program? There would be more than twice the number currently admitted across both SMCS sites. And that's with TJ clearly oversibscribed. One could point to the fact that Blair SMCS has even higher-level offerings than those at TJ, but there is the liklihood that among any hundred admitted there would be enough who would rise with the offered curriculum to support at least single sections of those courses.

Does Fairfax county tax more than Montgomery county? No. Instead of increasing taxes, we need to focus on fiscal responsibility and reduce wasteful spending MCPS currently has with such bloated central office.

That's been debunked. Fairfax County's per-student operational spend is all of three quarters of a percent lower than MoCo's. The "bloated central office" comparison comes from the difference in the way FCPS has categorized many centrally-managed staff with roughly equivalent functions as those at at MCPS as school-based.

Each system could improve management to control costs. MoCo's higher tax rate, though, has much more to do with non-education-oriented spending, giveaways, etc.

It seems like Montgomery County residents are getting a less favorable deal compared to Fairfax. Fairfax pays less in taxes but offers both centralized county-wide magnets and regional AAP (Advanced Academic Program) centers. They appear to deliver better educational quality and equity with fewer resources. So why is MCPS consistently less competent? ”

That seems to be moving the goalposts, there, unless you are a different poster.

I may agree that Fairfax has provided better (I may consider that to have been the case back to the 80s), and I may agree with the other PP that there have been less than farsighted MCPD initiatives, but I also think that the economic, clutural and linguistic demographics in Fairfax have presented less of a burden to FCPS than those in MoCo have presented to MCPS.

From an AAP/magnet standpoint, MCPS has more readily adopted the national trend of the past few decades against robustly addressing GT, despite its being a state-recognized need and associated programming costing considerably less than that for other need categories, while FCPS has resisted the trend (though not completely).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Actually, that's the reason MCPS is better than them, and dominating them in competitions. MCPS doesn't put all of its eggs in one basket, they're spread out. Reason why MCPS has lot more schools that can compete in competitions, while only TJ in FCPS can really compete.

Ahh? Where did you get this information? Based on my kid's experience (one STEM subject at national competition level), there are constantly some FCPS kids not from TJ ranking high in those competitions. I personally know at least two chose to decline TJ offers because they'd like to have more extra time for ECs. If a kid is at the top 1% level and understands the trade-offs at the end of 8th grade, that kid can be successful no matter where they go. The kids with high aptitudes and family resources are not impacted much either. It's the ones that have aptitudes but living in low-ranking HS regions/with limited family support and do not have a clear picture what they want that are going to be left behind if cancelling countywide SMACS/IB programs. So let's talk about equity.

Are you making the claim that kids with "high aptitudes with limited family support" are well-represented in countywide programs? Because that is not at all my experience as a parent in one of those programs, nor was it the findings of the one time MCPS looked into this question.

You can use your anecdotal experience, and I can use mine. Based on my anecdotal data points, yes there are a couple this kind of students in every grade. Some of them ended up getting top Ivy offers and did well in university or their career. For the report, can you point a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Did it kill the program when Blair stopped being countywide when Poolesville's program opened? No.

But Nicky Hazel said (see a previous thread) that they will make Blair, Poolesville and RMIB opening to its own regional HSs once the regional model is passed. This basically means the end of these prestigious programs.

PP's point (which I agree with) was that Blair used to be whole-of-county, and then they reduced the attendance zone by opening Poolesville.

Did that kill the program?

Again having students from 16 high schools or 25 high schools may not make a difference. But reducing significantly to 5 schools is going to kill the program.

It would be useful here to differentiate between "kill" and "change."

If we limit ourselves to the programs that DCUM perceives as the "best," we have Blair Magnet, Poolesville Magnet, and RMIB. I don't actually think those are the only good programs in MCPS, but let's just play along for a second.

Right now, the two SMCS programs are in either the far Eastern part of the county, or the far Northern part. That's interesting and important, because it means we cannot assume the current complement of applicants/acceptances is the full universe of capable kids. It's entirely possible that the number of capable kids is far higher, but geography is currently keeping them from applying/accepting.

I suppose it is "possible." Anything is "possible" right? But you don't change what's working (programs with known results) because you think something is "possible"... Build it and they will come is not the right way to run the school system, don't you agree? Has the school system done a complete systematic evaluation over the years to prove the need (i.e., the number of RMIB, Blair, and PHS magnet caliber kids) FAR outnumbered magnet seats currently available? I think not.

- dp

Yes! It's common knowledge starting from ES that there are more students who should have a greater challenge than can be provided for in the current magnet structure. That was the whole reason for creation of ELC classes in ES and doing a central evaluation. Do you think those kids just drop-off? Not to mention, there has been several studies done, including one around the EMLs that showed students were being denied access who would thrive. For example, just because they speak another language, doesn't mean they are incapable of getting to advance math.

There is 25 HS with an average of say 450 kids per grade (if not more). Do you really believe the 300-400 student/per grade from two SMACs programs and a IB program covers is an ideal representation of MCPS capable students. That like would like 2.5% of each HS grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Did it kill the program when Blair stopped being countywide when Poolesville's program opened? No.

But Nicky Hazel said (see a previous thread) that they will make Blair, Poolesville and RMIB opening to its own regional HSs once the regional model is passed. This basically means the end of these prestigious programs.

PP's point (which I agree with) was that Blair used to be whole-of-county, and then they reduced the attendance zone by opening Poolesville.

Did that kill the program?

Again having students from 16 high schools or 25 high schools may not make a difference. But reducing significantly to 5 schools is going to kill the program.

It would be useful here to differentiate between "kill" and "change."

If we limit ourselves to the programs that DCUM perceives as the "best," we have Blair Magnet, Poolesville Magnet, and RMIB. I don't actually think those are the only good programs in MCPS, but let's just play along for a second.

Right now, the two SMCS programs are in either the far Eastern part of the county, or the far Northern part. That's interesting and important, because it means we cannot assume the current complement of applicants/acceptances is the full universe of capable kids. It's entirely possible that the number of capable kids is far higher, but geography is currently keeping them from applying/accepting.

I suppose it is "possible." Anything is "possible" right? But you don't change what's working (programs with known results) because you think something is "possible"... Build it and they will come is not the right way to run the school system, don't you agree? Has the school system done a complete systematic evaluation over the years to prove the need (i.e., the number of RMIB, Blair, and PHS magnet caliber kids) FAR outnumbered magnet seats currently available? I think not.

- dp

Yes! It's common knowledge starting from ES that there are more students who should have a greater challenge than can be provided for in the current magnet structure. That was the whole reason for creation of ELC classes in ES and doing a central evaluation. Do you think those kids just drop-off? Not to mention, there has been several studies done, including one around the EMLs that showed students were being denied access who would thrive. For example, just because they speak another language, doesn't mean they are incapable of getting to advance math.

There is 25 HS with an average of say 450 kids per grade (if not more). Do you really believe the 300-400 student/per grade from two SMACs programs and a IB program covers is an ideal representation of MCPS capable students. That like would like 2.5% of each HS grade.

That's why these programs are so special. Our daughter's class had almost 40% NMSF. Most MCPS HSs don't even have single NMSF.