Program analysis webinars

[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?

That would be fine if the effects of redistricting were comparable across schools. They are not. Einstein is seeing a much larger cut than other nearby schools.

The initial boundary proposals remove 400-600 kids from Einstein. They remove 200-400 kids apiece from Blair and Wheaton, which have similar crowding problems. Those schools would still be over-capacity under the current maps.

Adding magnet students at BCC will put that school over capacity. Whitman’s enrollment numbers will be largely unaffected.

As for not liking the people near Einstein, I live in the walkable zone for Einstein. I’ve been here for 15 years. I love the neighborhood. I love the school and its programs and I want future kids to have the a comparable experience to what my kid has had there.

The programming change means Einstein will not be able to support its strongest programs anymore, through no fault of its own and without buy-in from the community. It would be different there was an organic reduction in interest in VAPA or IB, and requests for an education program instead.

That’s not what’s happening. There will still be regional demand for VAPA and IB, but MCPS won’t let Einstein meet that demand the way it does in the DCC. Instead, MCPS is is redirecting students interested in those programs to other buildings. Einstein gets a different menu of programs, that it will have to build from the ground up, but with reduced resources due to being a much smaller school. At the same time, legacy programs like VAPA and IB will be much weaker than they are now.

And again, none of this is being done at the behest of Einstein families or the DCC community. This is an MCPS initiative happening over the objections of local families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Rockville HS is a local program and their scores on the exact same exams are significantly higher than Einsteins. Rockville HS has very similar demographics to Einstein. The fact you wont even CONSIDER improving how these subjects are taught speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I expected them to shift some students to the new school, not dismantle the entire DCC and the Einstein performing arts program.

[Anonymous]

Btw you know it's not the demographics driving Einstein's low scores because the White kids are also doing terribly on their IB exams. And vanishingly few White kids at Einstein come from low income families (yes, I am aware that nationally, the majority of low income people are White. We are talking right now about Einstein HS in Kensington MD).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I expected them to shift some students to the new school, not dismantle the entire DCC and the Einstein performing arts program.

Yes, and by shifting students away from Einstein, it was always going to lose students, yet you seem to think that specifically is horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Rockville HS is a local program and their scores on the exact same exams are significantly higher than Einsteins. Rockville HS has very similar demographics to Einstein. The fact you wont even CONSIDER improving how these subjects are taught speaks volumes.

Can you share a link to these scores you are seeing?

[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?

To repeat once again: performing arts at Einstein is strong now because it draws passionate and talented performing arts kids from 5 different schools across the DCC (and of course because of the teachers.) With the changes, Einstein will have less than one school's worth of those kids (because no one from out of its boundaries can come for performing arts anymore with the elimination of the DCC) and many kids from within its boundaries will pick the Northwood performing arts magnet instead. Many staff and classes will presumably be cut as a result. Einstein may still be able to offer the basics that other schools offer, but it's still going to be a huge loss.

[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.

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

Tell me, what are the potential effects of membership and volunteerism on PTA and athletics booster org after losing 30% of enrollment, with a majority of those losses being middle- to upper-income families? Families that have the time to sell concessions at football games? Families than can purchase silent auction items to raise money for after prom? Families who can donate to the arts-support org that pays for musical instrument repairs and band uniforms?

Is it hateful to want a socioeconomically diverse community that can bring an array of resources to bear in support of a school? Is it hateful to want tomorrow’s Einstein students to have the same level of community support as today’s Einstein students? If so, then, yeah. I’m hateful. Gold star for you.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, doesn't everyone have a beef with the new regional plan? Kudos to Einstein families for seeing the downside quickly and advocating.

As a current, and therefore unaffected by the change, WJ parent I see them potentially dismantling what is now a very strong science department to put science focus in another school in the region. I hope I am wrong, and they maintain strong generalist high schools like WJ!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Rockville HS is a local program and their scores on the exact same exams are significantly higher than Einsteins. Rockville HS has very similar demographics to Einstein. The fact you wont even CONSIDER improving how these subjects are taught speaks volumes.

Can you share a link to these scores you are seeing?

Here you are: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/data/LAR-charts/IB-Exam-by-Subject.html

You have to filter by school and by subject. Look up:
English A: Language and Literature
Environmental Systems
History
Psychology

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Tell me, what are the potential effects of membership and volunteerism on PTA and athletics booster org after losing 30% of enrollment, with a majority of those losses being middle- to upper-income families? Families that have the time to sell concessions at football games? Families than can purchase silent auction items to raise money for after prom? Families who can donate to the arts-support org that pays for musical instrument repairs and band uniforms?

Is it hateful to want a socioeconomically diverse community that can bring an array of resources to bear in support of a school? Is it hateful to want tomorrow’s Einstein students to have the same level of community support as today’s Einstein students? If so, then, yeah. I’m hateful. Gold star for you.

I think the PTA will survive and hopefully feel more welcoming for BIPOC parents. I think people of all races and income levels can be assets to a school. I don't want my kid at an overcrowded school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, doesn't everyone have a beef with the new regional plan? Kudos to Einstein families for seeing the downside quickly and advocating.

As a current, and therefore unaffected by the change, WJ parent I see them potentially dismantling what is now a very strong science department to put science focus in another school in the region. I hope I am wrong, and they maintain strong generalist high schools like WJ!

Will APEX still exist? I highly doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Tell me, what are the potential effects of membership and volunteerism on PTA and athletics booster org after losing 30% of enrollment, with a majority of those losses being middle- to upper-income families? Families that have the time to sell concessions at football games? Families than can purchase silent auction items to raise money for after prom? Families who can donate to the arts-support org that pays for musical instrument repairs and band uniforms?

Is it hateful to want a socioeconomically diverse community that can bring an array of resources to bear in support of a school? Is it hateful to want tomorrow’s Einstein students to have the same level of community support as today’s Einstein students? If so, then, yeah. I’m hateful. Gold star for you.

I think the PTA will survive and hopefully feel more welcoming for BIPOC parents. I think people of all races and income levels can be assets to a school. I don't want my kid at an overcrowded school.

It’s not about racial demographics! It’s about a massive reduction in the overall size of our community!

Imagine if a consultant came in and fired 30% of your company. There would be negative effects. That’s what’s happening here!

[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: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

Tell me, what are the potential effects of membership and volunteerism on PTA and athletics booster org after losing 30% of enrollment, with a majority of those losses being middle- to upper-income families? Families that have the time to sell concessions at football games? Families than can purchase silent auction items to raise money for after prom? Families who can donate to the arts-support org that pays for musical instrument repairs and band uniforms?

Is it hateful to want a socioeconomically diverse community that can bring an array of resources to bear in support of a school? Is it hateful to want tomorrow’s Einstein students to have the same level of community support as today’s Einstein students? If so, then, yeah. I’m hateful. Gold star for you.

I think the PTA will survive and hopefully feel more welcoming for BIPOC parents. I think people of all races and income levels can be assets to a school. I don't want my kid at an overcrowded school.

It’s not about racial demographics! It’s about a massive reduction in the overall size of our community!

Imagine if a consultant came in and fired 30% of your company. There would be negative effects. That’s what’s happening here!

Oh you are a "I don't see race" person

[Anonymous]

Honestly you sound unhinged if you have this big of a problem with relieving overcrowding at a school that is massively over capacity. JFC