Making the most of the MCPS sessions on regional model 10/22 and 10/27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

Will they actually provide busing for Whitman Social Justice in the future? Because my 8th grader isn't applying because there's no bus transport--which is not promoting anything related to equity to only have kids there who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there somehow.

Apparently the plan is to bus kids from their local HS. So rather than just kids who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there, this will also provide access to the small sliver of students within close walking distance to their local HS so they can get there early enough to catch the bus! Everyone else still out of luck...

I thought no one wanted to go to icky white rich Whitman, so this doesn’t seem like a problem.

If 100 of the top students go to Whitman and BCC and suddenly Einstein can only offer a couple of AP classes every semester because of "lack of interest" then I guarantee you many will go to Whitman

[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:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Yeah I’m not going to be upset that kids are getting industry recognized certifications because that doesn’t have to go against rigor and is actually helpful. Some of ya’ll clearly don’t understand the 2025+ college admission landscape or the job market.

If you are majoring in the Arts, having an Adobe or CADD certification is in your interest. If you’re claiming to want to go into medicine, having a clinical related certificate is in your favor as it shows interest and commitment. Not to mention it understands the response not everyone is actually going to be Pre-Med and make it to becoming a doctor and there are lots of other Science/Medicine avenues.

Oh and this comment about “MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs”, makes it seem like MCPS has a choice in whether they check this box or not. It’s a state regulation, and MCPS generally gets a bunch of focus from the state on things like this, so I can certainly understand them trying to find ways to help make policy things reality that often are ambiguous and don’t have enough funding tied to them.

At the cost of killing rigor and eating the pie of basic education? This is chasing the top without watering the roots. You only get dead trees at the end.

How is rigor being killed in the regional model?

The criteria-based program will use low-bar, local norm and lottery. The staffing budget is 20% or less for a magnet program in the future compared to now. The sample STEM curriculum eliminates more than half of the junior and senior selectives, and math is one year slower than what SMcS currently have. Do I need to elaborate more?

Where does anything say that electives are eliminated? All I've seen is potential map of what one student's progress could look like through a program and it still had space for said student to choose their own electives. Additionally, I've yet to believe or be sold on why any student needs to be on track for MV (in the current track) in order to have a rigorous HS education.

The basic education is what needs to come up which is actually the roots. If anything, this should force people to advocate for that. Heck the grading changes alone seem to be bringing a spotlight to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Yeah I’m not going to be upset that kids are getting industry recognized certifications because that doesn’t have to go against rigor and is actually helpful. Some of ya’ll clearly don’t understand the 2025+ college admission landscape or the job market.

If you are majoring in the Arts, having an Adobe or CADD certification is in your interest. If you’re claiming to want to go into medicine, having a clinical related certificate is in your favor as it shows interest and commitment. Not to mention it understands the response not everyone is actually going to be Pre-Med and make it to becoming a doctor and there are lots of other Science/Medicine avenues.

Oh and this comment about “MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs”, makes it seem like MCPS has a choice in whether they check this box or not. It’s a state regulation, and MCPS generally gets a bunch of focus from the state on things like this, so I can certainly understand them trying to find ways to help make policy things reality that often are ambiguous and don’t have enough funding tied to them.

At the cost of killing rigor and eating the pie of basic education? This is chasing the top without watering the roots. You only get dead trees at the end.

How is rigor being killed in the regional model?

The criteria-based program will use low-bar, local norm and lottery. The staffing budget is 20% or less for a magnet program in the future compared to now. The sample STEM curriculum eliminates more than half of the junior and senior selectives, and math is one year slower than what SMcS currently have. Do I need to elaborate more?

Where does anything say that electives are eliminated? All I've seen is potential map of what one student's progress could look like through a program and it still had space for said student to choose their own electives. Additionally, I've yet to believe or be sold on why any student needs to be on track for MV (in the current track) in order to have a rigorous HS education.

The basic education is what needs to come up which is actually the roots. If anything, this should force people to advocate for that. Heck the grading changes alone seem to be bringing a spotlight to that.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

Will they actually provide busing for Whitman Social Justice in the future? Because my 8th grader isn't applying because there's no bus transport--which is not promoting anything related to equity to only have kids there who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there somehow.

Apparently the plan is to bus kids from their local HS. So rather than just kids who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there, this will also provide access to the small sliver of students within close walking distance to their local HS so they can get there early enough to catch the bus! Everyone else still out of luck...

I thought no one wanted to go to icky white rich Whitman, so this doesn’t seem like a problem.

If 100 of the top students go to Whitman and BCC and suddenly Einstein can only offer a couple of AP classes every semester because of "lack of interest" then I guarantee you many will go to Whitman

You me Einstein would have fewer APs than present? Or Einstein would just continue to have fewer APs than Whitman? Bc the programs do not seem big enough to have #1 happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

This has been an item that I have been asking about and needs more focus. What is a “similar” program. Because Navy JROTC and Social Justice are not similar programs, despite both having leadership components.

If this is supposed to be finalized by end of November, they need to be puttting out a program chart ASAP. We’re beyond Themes at this point.

Will they actually provide busing for Whitman Social Justice in the future? Because my 8th grader isn't applying because there's no bus transport--which is not promoting anything related to equity to only have kids there who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there somehow.

Apparently the plan is to bus kids from their local HS. So rather than just kids who are already at Whitman or whose parents can get them there, this will also provide access to the small sliver of students within close walking distance to their local HS so they can get there early enough to catch the bus! Everyone else still out of luck...

I thought no one wanted to go to icky white rich Whitman, so this doesn’t seem like a problem.

If 100 of the top students go to Whitman and BCC and suddenly Einstein can only offer a couple of AP classes every semester because of "lack of interest" then I guarantee you many will go to Whitman

You me Einstein would have fewer APs than present? Or Einstein would just continue to have fewer APs than Whitman? Bc the programs do not seem big enough to have #1 happen.

If each program takes 10-15 per grade from each of the other 4 schools and there are 4 programs housed at Whitman and BCC that is 40-60 kids from each other school per grade. Einstein is slated to have 1600 kids or 400 per grade. 40-60 kids is 10-15% of each class. And they will be among the most motivated and well resourced kids. They might get some back for the biomedical program assuming it gets off the ground, who TF knows. But I am guessing BCC and Whitman's programs will draw more kids than Einstein or Northwood and who knows about Blair given how much its existing program is likely to change. Einstein and Northwood are not going to draw a lot of kids from BCC and very few from Whitman.

[Anonymous]

The Regional Program plan will be voted on and likely rubber stamped in this week's BOE session: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRLK6E7BD9/$file/FY2026%20Program%20Eval%20Plan%20251030.pdf

If you want to pressure your BOE reps to vote against this, now is the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Regional Program plan will be voted on and likely rubber stamped in this week's BOE session: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMQRLK6E7BD9/$file/FY2026%20Program%20Eval%20Plan%20251030.pdf

If you want to pressure your BOE reps to vote against this, now is the time.

Actually, nm. I think this is the other program evaluation thing they've been discussing and not the specialized regional program proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

I would say this was the motivation for Blair but perhaps not the other magnets. Eg Poolesville.

Poolesville gets to hide in safety because it's way out by itself upcounty.

[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:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

I would say this was the motivation for Blair but perhaps not the other magnets. Eg Poolesville.

Poolesville gets to hide in safety because it's way out by itself upcounty.

This would appear to be the same issue with Whitman.

[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:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+ 1 those schools also already have numerous AP courses that give college credit. Whitman has 9 AP social studies courses. GMAFB. They don't need a humanities "certification" and they definitely don't need to bring in 200 high achieving kids from other schools. Has nobody at central office heard of cream skimming and why you don't place magnets at wealthy schools? I can't believe they are daring to use the word equity for this disgrace.

The "Humanities" program is mainly a renaming of the existing AP program, and inviting students from other schools to attend.

What's wrong with "cream skimming"???
That's exactly what parents have been begging for, to give advanced kids access to advanced classes.

Jfc you couldn't even be bothered to do a basic Google search?

Here you go:

Cream skimming in schools is bad because it leads to greater segregation and inequality by selectively enrolling high-achieving students while leaving more challenging students to traditional public schools. This practice harms public schools by reducing their resources and student base, concentrates disadvantaged students in public schools, and can create a system where schools with the highest needs are left with the fewest resources.
Negative consequences of cream skimming
Increased segregation: Cream skimming can lead to more segregation by ability and socioeconomic status, as schools that "skim" enroll students who are easier to teach, leaving more challenging students behind in other schools.
Undermines public schools: When higher-achieving students are siphoned off, public schools are left with a higher concentration of students with greater needs, which can impact test scores and resources.
Hinders the mission of equal opportunity: Critics argue that the practice goes against the goal of public education by providing more resources and opportunities to some students while neglecting others.
Inaccurate representation of school quality: Schools that cream skim can create a false impression of superior performance by using their selective enrollment to boost test scores, which doesn't reflect their actual educational model.

Jfc you couldn't even be bothered to do basic thinking?


Your copy pasted list is irrelevant because the schools that get "cream" are also public schools, and aren't getting more resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+ 1 those schools also already have numerous AP courses that give college credit. Whitman has 9 AP social studies courses. GMAFB. They don't need a humanities "certification" and they definitely don't need to bring in 200 high achieving kids from other schools. Has nobody at central office heard of cream skimming and why you don't place magnets at wealthy schools? I can't believe they are daring to use the word equity for this disgrace.

The "Humanities" program is mainly a renaming of the existing AP program, and inviting students from other schools to attend.

What's wrong with "cream skimming"???
That's exactly what parents have been begging for, to give advanced kids access to advanced classes.

Jfc you couldn't even be bothered to do a basic Google search?

Here you go:

Cream skimming in schools is bad because it leads to greater segregation and inequality by selectively enrolling high-achieving students while leaving more challenging students to traditional public schools. This practice harms public schools by reducing their resources and student base, concentrates disadvantaged students in public schools, and can create a system where schools with the highest needs are left with the fewest resources.
Negative consequences of cream skimming
Increased segregation: Cream skimming can lead to more segregation by ability and socioeconomic status, as schools that "skim" enroll students who are easier to teach, leaving more challenging students behind in other schools.
Undermines public schools: When higher-achieving students are siphoned off, public schools are left with a higher concentration of students with greater needs, which can impact test scores and resources.
Hinders the mission of equal opportunity: Critics argue that the practice goes against the goal of public education by providing more resources and opportunities to some students while neglecting others.
Inaccurate representation of school quality: Schools that cream skim can create a false impression of superior performance by using their selective enrollment to boost test scores, which doesn't reflect their actual educational model.

Jfc you couldn't even be bothered to do basic thinking?


Your copy pasted list is irrelevant because the schools that get "cream" are also public schools, and aren't getting more resources.

Of course they are getting more resources, to say otherwise when they are getting programs that bring in hundreds of students that will justify added staffing is preposterous. To say nothing of the fact that the students that can swing the commute will be disproportionately White and high income, which will increase racial and economic segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

I don't believe you.
Where is there anything about IB Diploma in the Blueprint metrics?

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/Blueprint-Aligned-Metrics-One-Pager-4-2025-A.pdf


https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/CCR-Standard-Policy-Adopted-03-2025-A.pdf

Scroll to the section titled Criteria for Success. It’s on page 12 of that section (page 30 of the PDF).

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2022/aib%20-%20133089464452432798%20-%20MSDE%20-%20Blueprint%20Implementation%20Plan%20Guidance%20Document%2020220928%20(1).pdf

Broken link (bad website).

Here's the link:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2022/aib%20-%20133089464452432798%20-%20MSDE%20-%20Blueprint%20Implementation%20Plan%20Guidance%20Document%2020220928%20(1).pdf

"School system provides ... the current
and projected IB student participation and
diplomat [sic] completion rates, and detailed,
ambitious, and feasible plans to improve
those rates and ensure the composition of
students enrolled in IB course offerings
reflects the composition of the overall student
population"

3 goals

#1 maximize participation, regardless of diploma
#2 maximize diplomas, which suggests selecting for more capable students
#3 maximize diversity, which incentives against diplomas and is easier to measure 4 years earlier than diplomas


So they aren't incentivized to select for more-able students.

[Anonymous]

I also think it is completely insane that they have not once discussed existing racial inequities and how they have thought specifically about racial equity in their program analysis. They aren't following very basic and well established practices for racial equity analyses which is pretty disgraceful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone link to evidence that shows that criteria program are going to lottery? Is there a video recording?

There is a link to a recording of the 10/22 webinar at the top of this page:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

Maybe someone who watched it can provide an idea of when in the presentation they got to that question.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2iJ1NHiyOrk

At 23:45 the slide shows that criteria base programs use academic measures, portfolio, etc, but does not mention lottery.

At 46:06 the speaker says that some programs are criteria based and some are interest based with lottery.

That's 2 pieces of evidence that criteria-based is non lottery, and zero evidence that criteria-based is lottery.


The speaker does mention local set-asides, which is lower standard than purevcapability-based criteria, but that's not lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it is completely insane that they have not once discussed existing racial inequities and how they have thought specifically about racial equity in their program analysis. They aren't following very basic and well established practices for racial equity analyses which is pretty disgraceful.

What are the "basic and well-established practices" ?