Do these docs show any changes in #s or courses for existing prograns?

[Anonymous]

How did they make the Poolesville Global Ecology program interest based, but make it more rigorous than their new AgroEcology/Environmental Science program that is listed as criteria based?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is saying "SMC math elective" and "SMC science elective" doesn't tell you much. There are currently electives that will not be able to be offered with the smaller cohort and others that cannot be offered since the pre-reqs cannot be met based on the slowed down math pathway.

Also - apparently Region 4 doesn't get any local set aside seats.

There will be enough kids to have a strong cohort. The question is will staff be allocated for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These course pathway descriptions are ridiculous. Some are overly detailed and others not. It one place it says 8th graders have to be in Level 2 of a language and then in 9th grade should the kid taking Lvl2,3, or 4. Moreover, without mandating a language in middle school this makes the programs unequitable.

How does Clarksburg Biomedical program have Secondary Math Pathway Course 1 for three years, and IB English/IB History when it doesn't even offer an IB program.

For the Pharmacy Technician program how do you not at least list the required graduation science credits.

They can't be serious with this release of information.

I don't think central office understands graduation requirements or what is at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the heck is this AgroEcolog and sometimes names Environmental Science program and why is it criteria base? More importantly what is the criteria?

For this to be criteria based it needs to require AP Seminar for 10th grade English, AP Research as an Elective, a data related course for math or tech Ed, and likely an Intro to Sustainability or o Urban planning related engineering/science elective.

They should be sitting down the UN to discuss incorporating the SDGs, FDA/USDA for partnership and internships, etc.

Seriously who is creating these and thinks they equate with rigor.

I dunno about the rest, but pretty sure the "why" of why it's criteria-based is that families were complaining that there was no academic criteria-based magnet at Northwood (maybe other schools as well, but that's the one I know about.). So they decided to add this agroecology thing which pretty obviously should be interest-based (and may not have enough interest to operate) but label it criteria-based to try to shut families up and undercut our ability to make the case to the BOE that this is inequitable. They will probably go ahead and switch it back to interest-based next year after the plan passes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blair SMCS parent here. The math is one-year behind the current one. They remove completely the engineering courses which should span the first two years. CSP in 10th grade? That's a suicidal move for any STEM student.

The internship between 11th and 12th grade summer is laughable, as current students all apply by themselves and there is no organized pathway to guarantee any research internship. Same thing for "national and international STEM competitions". If they are talking about AMC, ARML, F=ma those types of competitions, those are pretty much organized by a single teacher across the entire MCPS currently. And expecting him to expand the access to 3X is ridiculous. All other competition opportunities (e.g., Hackathon, science bowl) are organized by student-led clubs and among peers (and parents need to resolve the logistics). School doesn't organize any of these opportunities other than give students an excused absence approval.

Which grade is your kid in? And what are the courses they took/need to take per grade as per the current program schedule?

I don't know what courses an advanced kid should be taking, so pardon my ignorance - why is taking CSP in 10th grade a suicidal move for a STEM student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

This is a silly plan as it excludes kids who want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair SMCS parent here. The math is one-year behind the current one. They remove completely the engineering courses which should span the first two years. CSP in 10th grade? That's a suicidal move for any STEM student.

The internship between 11th and 12th grade summer is laughable, as current students all apply by themselves and there is no organized pathway to guarantee any research internship. Same thing for "national and international STEM competitions". If they are talking about AMC, ARML, F=ma those types of competitions, those are pretty much organized by a single teacher across the entire MCPS currently. And expecting him to expand the access to 3X is ridiculous. All other competition opportunities (e.g., Hackathon, science bowl) are organized by student-led clubs and among peers (and parents need to resolve the logistics). School doesn't organize any of these opportunities other than give students an excused absence approval.

Which grade is your kid in? And what are the courses they took/need to take per grade as per the current program schedule?

I don't know what courses an advanced kid should be taking, so pardon my ignorance - why is taking CSP in 10th grade a suicidal move for a STEM student?

I also have know idea why taking AP CSP in 10th grade would be a suicidal move for a STEM student since that is exactly when lots of them take it. Some do take it in 9th to fulfill the tech credit. Especially those that are technology focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blair SMCS parent here. The math is one-year behind the current one. They remove completely the engineering courses which should span the first two years. CSP in 10th grade? That's a suicidal move for any STEM student.

The internship between 11th and 12th grade summer is laughable, as current students all apply by themselves and there is no organized pathway to guarantee any research internship. Same thing for "national and international STEM competitions". If they are talking about AMC, ARML, F=ma those types of competitions, those are pretty much organized by a single teacher across the entire MCPS currently. And expecting him to expand the access to 3X is ridiculous. All other competition opportunities (e.g., Hackathon, science bowl) are organized by student-led clubs and among peers (and parents need to resolve the logistics). School doesn't organize any of these opportunities other than give students an excused absence approval.

That's not how AMC, ARML, F=ma work.

AMC and F=ma are hosted at local school.

ARML is countywide, a travel event, and has practice at Blair for convenience, but it is not for a single school's students, and has night practice. It can stay that way, or anyone (teacher or parent) can choose to sponsor a new regional team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

Are all 1500 of those kids capable of handling the advanced curriculum? Just because people apply doesn't mean it would be a good fit. I have one kid in a competitive program, and another kid who is applying to it this year but has no business being in it. They only applied because the common app makes it so easy. If the idea is to take care of everyone on the waitlist, then that is an interest-based program not a criteria-based program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair SMCS parent here. The math is one-year behind the current one. They remove completely the engineering courses which should span the first two years. CSP in 10th grade? That's a suicidal move for any STEM student.

The internship between 11th and 12th grade summer is laughable, as current students all apply by themselves and there is no organized pathway to guarantee any research internship. Same thing for "national and international STEM competitions". If they are talking about AMC, ARML, F=ma those types of competitions, those are pretty much organized by a single teacher across the entire MCPS currently. And expecting him to expand the access to 3X is ridiculous. All other competition opportunities (e.g., Hackathon, science bowl) are organized by student-led clubs and among peers (and parents need to resolve the logistics). School doesn't organize any of these opportunities other than give students an excused absence approval.

Regular math for what I looked at is heavily behind and algebra in 9th, which is a track for some kids but there is a huge range from 6-10th for algebra.

I don't see anything new added. It lists other classes but our principal has said no to those classes so I don't see how this will work. It would be nice if all schools had access to those clubs and competitions.

Are you saying you are at a school with a new SMCS program and it lists classes the principal has previously said no to offering? Which ones? Presumably they will be required to offer them in order to host the program?

No, we are at a different school. I don't get the SMCS push. It looked terrible to me. We asked for a class, principal said no but its in the pathway for the "magnet."

You understand that the new plan, flawed as it may be, is a new plan to CHANGE the current course offerings, and an attempt to create a cohort for these classes that the schools currently can't support individually. It might fail, but your criticism doesn't make sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

This is a silly plan as it excludes kids who want it.

These are application/criterion based programs. They should have seats for everyone that qualifies, but not necessarily everyone that applies. MCPS never released waitpool data so we have no idea how many seats are needed throughout the county, or where these seats are needed. Also, students apply to multiple program, turn down acceptances, and choose the best fit, which is sometimes staying at their home school. There is a lot of overlap between the students applying for IB and students applying for SMCS, so these students shouldn't be counted twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

This is a silly plan as it excludes kids who want it.

These are application/criterion based programs. They should have seats for everyone that qualifies, but not necessarily everyone that applies. MCPS never released waitpool data so we have no idea how many seats are needed throughout the county, or where these seats are needed. Also, students apply to multiple program, turn down acceptances, and choose the best fit, which is sometimes staying at their home school. There is a lot of overlap between the students applying for IB and students applying for SMCS, so these students shouldn't be counted twice.

Criteria-based is changing to lottery, no longer an application. Anyone who meets "criteria" will be entered into the lottery. This was done previously for the ES and MS magnets.

[Anonymous]

That is not what Jeannie Franklin told us at the Blair engagement meeting. She said definitively that these programs would NOT be like the MS magnets, and that there would be NO lottery component. Of course that doesn't mean that I believe her...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck is this AgroEcolog and sometimes names Environmental Science program and why is it criteria base? More importantly what is the criteria?

For this to be criteria based it needs to require AP Seminar for 10th grade English, AP Research as an Elective, a data related course for math or tech Ed, and likely an Intro to Sustainability or o Urban planning related engineering/science elective.

They should be sitting down the UN to discuss incorporating the SDGs, FDA/USDA for partnership and internships, etc.

Seriously who is creating these and thinks they equate with rigor.

I dunno about the rest, but pretty sure the "why" of why it's criteria-based is that families were complaining that there was no academic criteria-based magnet at Northwood (maybe other schools as well, but that's the one I know about.). So they decided to add this agroecology thing which pretty obviously should be interest-based (and may not have enough interest to operate) but label it criteria-based to try to shut families up and undercut our ability to make the case to the BOE that this is inequitable. They will probably go ahead and switch it back to interest-based next year after the plan passes

Everything in this comment is probably exactly correct, and it is so disheartening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair SMCS parent here. The math is one-year behind the current one. They remove completely the engineering courses which should span the first two years. CSP in 10th grade? That's a suicidal move for any STEM student.

The internship between 11th and 12th grade summer is laughable, as current students all apply by themselves and there is no organized pathway to guarantee any research internship. Same thing for "national and international STEM competitions". If they are talking about AMC, ARML, F=ma those types of competitions, those are pretty much organized by a single teacher across the entire MCPS currently. And expecting him to expand the access to 3X is ridiculous. All other competition opportunities (e.g., Hackathon, science bowl) are organized by student-led clubs and among peers (and parents need to resolve the logistics). School doesn't organize any of these opportunities other than give students an excused absence approval.

Which grade is your kid in? And what are the courses they took/need to take per grade as per the current program schedule?

I don't know what courses an advanced kid should be taking, so pardon my ignorance - why is taking CSP in 10th grade a suicidal move for a STEM student?

I also have know idea why taking AP CSP in 10th grade would be a suicidal move for a STEM student since that is exactly when lots of them take it. Some do take it in 9th to fulfill the tech credit. Especially those that are technology focused.

Whether or not this is a suicidal move for a student, this is certainly one indication of the deathknell of the SMCS program because students in that program take CS-A in tenth grade. My kids, like their friends in that program, never took CSP. (I think one of my kids had a friend that had taken CSP after self study in middle school.)

If MCPS administration is designing an SMCS program with CSP in tenth grade, and also claiming (which is what they are doing now) that there will be six programs all as rigorous as Blair, they are lying.

For all those that think what MCPS is doing is great, and they will get the shiny object in their home school instead of going to Blair/Poolesville/RM, you are not getting that shiny object.

-- DP