Program analysis webinars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

Can’t improve anything when the new boundaries wipe out 30% of enrollment. The first maps had Einstein losing up to 600 students, which means massive staff cuts too. Half of that number comes from kids being re-zoned for BCC.

BCC gets the IB program and a huge chunk of non-FARMS students from Einstein.

Einstein gets an higher overall FARMS rate, less diversity by removing white students, and an “education magnet” based on an existing elective pathway that is so under-enrolled that the school talked about cancelling it. Kids from the DCC aren’t interested in it now, BCC and Whitman kids won’t be interested in the future.

In other words, BCC-grad Taylor is turning BCC into an elite college preparatory program by siphoning off resources from Einstein, and leaving Einstein without the tools to rebuild.

[Anonymous]

Right now the vast majority of kids at Blair SMCS come from schools not in the proposed Region 1 so presumably Einstein kids will have a better shot at that program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

Can’t improve anything when the new boundaries wipe out 30% of enrollment. The first maps had Einstein losing up to 600 students, which means massive staff cuts too. Half of that number comes from kids being re-zoned for BCC.

BCC gets the IB program and a huge chunk of non-FARMS students from Einstein.

Einstein gets an higher overall FARMS rate, less diversity by removing white students, and an “education magnet” based on an existing elective pathway that is so under-enrolled that the school talked about cancelling it. Kids from the DCC aren’t interested in it now, BCC and Whitman kids won’t be interested in the future.

In other words, BCC-grad Taylor is turning BCC into an elite college preparatory program by siphoning off resources from Einstein, and leaving Einstein without the tools to rebuild.

Are you looking at different boundary options than I am? Because the demographic changes for Einstein don't seem that dramatic. It will still be about half Latino because that's who lives near Einstein,.sorry not sorry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

Of the “high achievers” in my Einstein neighborhood, they are currently: at Blair SMCS, at Blair CAP, at Wheaton engineering, doing IB diploma at Einstein, or doing a combination of IB classes and AP classes at Einstein. I would say the majority are in the last category.

Hypothetically, many of these kids would probably be siphoned out to regional magnets under the new plan.

But there’s another big problem. The major features that attract many of these kids to stay at Einstein — its excellent art and performing arts options — would also be disappearing. I know several kids who turned down other schools because they wanted to be part of music or theater at Einstein. Wheaton, for example, has essentially no performing arts. If you take that away from Einstein you have a major loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

Of the “high achievers” in my Einstein neighborhood, they are currently: at Blair SMCS, at Blair CAP, at Wheaton engineering, doing IB diploma at Einstein, or doing a combination of IB classes and AP classes at Einstein. I would say the majority are in the last category.

Hypothetically, many of these kids would probably be siphoned out to regional magnets under the new plan.

But there’s another big problem. The major features that attract many of these kids to stay at Einstein — its excellent art and performing arts options — would also be disappearing. I know several kids who turned down other schools because they wanted to be part of music or theater at Einstein. Wheaton, for example, has essentially no performing arts. If you take that away from Einstein you have a major loss.

Aren't they keeping the VAC? And when did they say they were eliminating performing arts at Einstein?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

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

No math after Calc BC describes the vast majority of high schools in America. This one poster is obsessed with this. This is NOT an issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/APStudents/comments/15sadpn/how_common_is_it_for_students_to_take_multivar/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

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

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

Of the “high achievers” in my Einstein neighborhood, they are currently: at Blair SMCS, at Blair CAP, at Wheaton engineering, doing IB diploma at Einstein, or doing a combination of IB classes and AP classes at Einstein. I would say the majority are in the last category.

Hypothetically, many of these kids would probably be siphoned out to regional magnets under the new plan.

But there’s another big problem. The major features that attract many of these kids to stay at Einstein — its excellent art and performing arts options — would also be disappearing. I know several kids who turned down other schools because they wanted to be part of music or theater at Einstein. Wheaton, for example, has essentially no performing arts. If you take that away from Einstein you have a major loss.

Aren't they keeping the VAC? And when did they say they were eliminating performing arts at Einstein?

Their current plan moves a criteria based performing arts program to Northwood.

They are “keeping” the VAC but it will only draw from the local region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right now the vast majority of kids at Blair SMCS come from schools not in the proposed Region 1 so presumably Einstein kids will have a better shot at that program

But the problem is that the programs MCPS has assigned to Einstein will not draw students to replace those leaving for other programs.

Kids might have a better chance of getting into Blair but who the hell will come to the design and education magnets at Einstein? Nearly every school in the county has digital art and design classes. Most schools have education programs. Who would get on a bus for classes they can take at home?

Yes, other schools are getting the same design and education magnets as Einstein, but that will simply be additive for those schools. They’ll have a magnet they never had before, and if it doesn’t take off, eh. No harm done.

At Einstein, they are effectively REMOVING magnet-style enrollment in the performing arts academy and replacing it with shitty magnets instead.

Under the DCC system, about 150 kids per year come to Einstein from other schools, many for the performing arts, plus 30 or so kids for the VAC.

In the new system, Einstein will have about 90 magnet seats per year, and no guarantee that anyone will want to fill them.

The school loses kids in the boundary study, loses more kids than it gains in the program study, so it will loses teachers and classes as well.

This proposal sucks for Einstein. Maybe it doesn’t suck for your school and that’s great, but don’t pretend it’s good for every school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

Can’t improve anything when the new boundaries wipe out 30% of enrollment. The first maps had Einstein losing up to 600 students, which means massive staff cuts too. Half of that number comes from kids being re-zoned for BCC.

BCC gets the IB program and a huge chunk of non-FARMS students from Einstein.

Einstein gets an higher overall FARMS rate, less diversity by removing white students, and an “education magnet” based on an existing elective pathway that is so under-enrolled that the school talked about cancelling it. Kids from the DCC aren’t interested in it now, BCC and Whitman kids won’t be interested in the future.

In other words, BCC-grad Taylor is turning BCC into an elite college preparatory program by siphoning off resources from Einstein, and leaving Einstein without the tools to rebuild.

Are you looking at different boundary options than I am? Because the demographic changes for Einstein don't seem that dramatic. It will still be about half Latino because that's who lives near Einstein,.sorry not sorry?

In three of the four options, the Einstein FARMS rate goes up. It will be between 5-11% higher. The school isn’t gaining low-income families, just losing non-FARMS families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now the vast majority of kids at Blair SMCS come from schools not in the proposed Region 1 so presumably Einstein kids will have a better shot at that program

But the problem is that the programs MCPS has assigned to Einstein will not draw students to replace those leaving for other programs.

Kids might have a better chance of getting into Blair but who the hell will come to the design and education magnets at Einstein? Nearly every school in the county has digital art and design classes. Most schools have education programs. Who would get on a bus for classes they can take at home?

Yes, other schools are getting the same design and education magnets as Einstein, but that will simply be additive for those schools. They’ll have a magnet they never had before, and if it doesn’t take off, eh. No harm done.

At Einstein, they are effectively REMOVING magnet-style enrollment in the performing arts academy and replacing it with shitty magnets instead.

Under the DCC system, about 150 kids per year come to Einstein from other schools, many for the performing arts, plus 30 or so kids for the VAC.

In the new system, Einstein will have about 90 magnet seats per year, and no guarantee that anyone will want to fill them.

The school loses kids in the boundary study, loses more kids than it gains in the program study, so it will loses teachers and classes as well.

This proposal sucks for Einstein. Maybe it doesn’t suck for your school and that’s great, but don’t pretend it’s good for every school.

Um my family is zoned for Einstein.

My understand is that the school is over capacity and the entire point of the boundary study is to relieve schools like Einstein. So I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. Sounds like you don't like the population that might be zoned for Einstein and don't think we are good enough so you are desperate to bring in kids from other schools. What is so terrible about us?

[Anonymous]

To people in the know, what do you think are the reasons Einstein's IB program isn't strong? Teacher quality?

Would it make more sense to remove IB from Einstein and just have a full slate of AP courses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP

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

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

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

Can’t improve anything when the new boundaries wipe out 30% of enrollment. The first maps had Einstein losing up to 600 students, which means massive staff cuts too. Half of that number comes from kids being re-zoned for BCC.

BCC gets the IB program and a huge chunk of non-FARMS students from Einstein.

Einstein gets an higher overall FARMS rate, less diversity by removing white students, and an “education magnet” based on an existing elective pathway that is so under-enrolled that the school talked about cancelling it. Kids from the DCC aren’t interested in it now, BCC and Whitman kids won’t be interested in the future.

In other words, BCC-grad Taylor is turning BCC into an elite college preparatory program by siphoning off resources from Einstein, and leaving Einstein without the tools to rebuild.

Are you looking at different boundary options than I am? Because the demographic changes for Einstein don't seem that dramatic. It will still be about half Latino because that's who lives near Einstein,.sorry not sorry?

In three of the four options, the Einstein FARMS rate goes up. It will be between 5-11% higher. The school isn’t gaining low-income families, just losing non-FARMS families.

You sound pretty hateful if you are so scared of these increases. Btw they aren't going to do Option 2 because it is btsht insane

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To people in the know, what do you think are the reasons Einstein's IB program isn't strong? Teacher quality?

Would it make more sense to remove IB from Einstein and just have a full slate of AP courses?

Not strong how? It’s a pretty open access program, not test-in like RM or even Kennedy.

Why did you jump right to teacher quality? No that’s not it. Why does everyone blame teachers at lower income schools and think teachers at high income schools are achieving some magic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now the vast majority of kids at Blair SMCS come from schools not in the proposed Region 1 so presumably Einstein kids will have a better shot at that program

But the problem is that the programs MCPS has assigned to Einstein will not draw students to replace those leaving for other programs.

Kids might have a better chance of getting into Blair but who the hell will come to the design and education magnets at Einstein? Nearly every school in the county has digital art and design classes. Most schools have education programs. Who would get on a bus for classes they can take at home?

Yes, other schools are getting the same design and education magnets as Einstein, but that will simply be additive for those schools. They’ll have a magnet they never had before, and if it doesn’t take off, eh. No harm done.

At Einstein, they are effectively REMOVING magnet-style enrollment in the performing arts academy and replacing it with shitty magnets instead.

Under the DCC system, about 150 kids per year come to Einstein from other schools, many for the performing arts, plus 30 or so kids for the VAC.

In the new system, Einstein will have about 90 magnet seats per year, and no guarantee that anyone will want to fill them.

The school loses kids in the boundary study, loses more kids than it gains in the program study, so it will loses teachers and classes as well.

This proposal sucks for Einstein. Maybe it doesn’t suck for your school and that’s great, but don’t pretend it’s good for every school.

Um my family is zoned for Einstein.

My understand is that the school is over capacity and the entire point of the boundary study is to relieve schools like Einstein. So I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. Sounds like you don't like the population that might be zoned for Einstein and don't think we are good enough so you are desperate to bring in kids from other schools. What is so terrible about us?

You have made quite a leap into assuming this poster is prejudiced. Einstein is set to lose students, which loses staff, and lose its signature programs. None of this is about the demographics of the kids who attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right now the vast majority of kids at Blair SMCS come from schools not in the proposed Region 1 so presumably Einstein kids will have a better shot at that program

But the problem is that the programs MCPS has assigned to Einstein will not draw students to replace those leaving for other programs.

Kids might have a better chance of getting into Blair but who the hell will come to the design and education magnets at Einstein? Nearly every school in the county has digital art and design classes. Most schools have education programs. Who would get on a bus for classes they can take at home?

Yes, other schools are getting the same design and education magnets as Einstein, but that will simply be additive for those schools. They’ll have a magnet they never had before, and if it doesn’t take off, eh. No harm done.

At Einstein, they are effectively REMOVING magnet-style enrollment in the performing arts academy and replacing it with shitty magnets instead.

Under the DCC system, about 150 kids per year come to Einstein from other schools, many for the performing arts, plus 30 or so kids for the VAC.

In the new system, Einstein will have about 90 magnet seats per year, and no guarantee that anyone will want to fill them.

The school loses kids in the boundary study, loses more kids than it gains in the program study, so it will loses teachers and classes as well.

This proposal sucks for Einstein. Maybe it doesn’t suck for your school and that’s great, but don’t pretend it’s good for every school.

Um my family is zoned for Einstein.

My understand is that the school is over capacity and the entire point of the boundary study is to relieve schools like Einstein. So I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. Sounds like you don't like the population that might be zoned for Einstein and don't think we are good enough so you are desperate to bring in kids from other schools. What is so terrible about us?

You have made quite a leap into assuming this poster is prejudiced. Einstein is set to lose students, which loses staff, and lose its signature programs. None of this is about the demographics of the kids who attend.

It's an overcrowded school and they just built a new high school. I'm not sure what you expected to happen.