If I was designing the new regional model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This topic has been beaten to death lately and yet, the more we talk about it, CO seems to move even further in the wrong direction. Since it is clear that some of them are lurking here and post from time to time to defend their ill-conceived plan, here is another attempt to save them (and MoCo families) from the disaster they are creating.

The current plan will backfire for many reasons:

- there is way too many new magnets; some of them are highly specialized programs completely inappropriate and/or unnecessary at high school level
- when almost every program is called magnet, nothing is – the plan defeats the whole idea of magnets being designed to challenge academically advanced kids
- placing magnets at top schools defeats the idea of strengthening less fortunate schools through adding new classes and attracting quality students
- placing magnets at very bottom performing schools gives little chance such magnets to succeed as very few will send kids there
- new magnets have clearly watered-down curriculums compared to today’s top magnets which can hardly be in anyone’s interest

As a result, this 30-new-magnets plan will create magnets in name only and ruin MoCo reputation among college admission professionals, while not helping anybody.

But let’s assume that status quo is unacceptable for reasons stated many times – lack of access and equity. Instead of introducing never heard of magnets, why not keep it simple and expand the programs that are well established and successful. For example:

- four regions, each with seven or eight schools, reasonably diverse
- two magnets in each region – one that mimic Blair STEM magnet and one that mimic RBIM – one for STEM driven students and one for humanities driven students; everything else at this point in life for students is a distraction and waste of limited resources
- don’t place magnets in the top two schools academically in any given region as they probably already have rich advanced class offerings
- don’t place magnets in the bottom two schools academically in any given region as they will attract very few students

Benefits:

- you only need to install five new magnets (Blair, Poolesville and RBIM already exist)
- there is a much less of a risk that new magnets will fail – they will follow successful examples, have highly relevant curriculums and draw students from 7-8 schools instead of just 4-5 as currently proposed
- the number of spots for academically advanced students will approximately triple compared to what we have today
- bus rides for most magnet kids will be shorter compared to what we have today

As for equity, equity cannot be fixed with new magnets. That is not what magnets are for. So you offer an art magnet and somehow it is helping with equity. It does not. It just creates false sense that you are doing something. Equity should be fixed with new class offerings (AP type classes that actually prepare you for most majors in college) in all high schools. So instead of wasting resources on magnets such as arts and bio-engineering, spend money and energy on hiring teachers and introducing advanced classes in all schools that currently don’t have them. It doesn’t matter that there may not be enough interest today in some schools. Offer challenging classes and smart kids will come.

The critical point you are forgetting is that Blair, Poolesville and RBIM are not the only programs in the county right now. There is a Visual Arts magnet already. BioEngineering exist at Wheaton currently. In fact its lead teacher just won the PLTW Teacher of the Year award. There are also many programs in individual schools that have come about in order to give students things because access was limited.

A better recommendation might be to review the individual programs to determine which ones could be consolidated into a main program based on the program coordinators/teacher collaborating.

You are missing there are a lot of qualified kids and few slots for those programs and at schools that have few offerings, its not equity for them to go without so your kids can have.

No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This topic has been beaten to death lately and yet, the more we talk about it, CO seems to move even further in the wrong direction. Since it is clear that some of them are lurking here and post from time to time to defend their ill-conceived plan, here is another attempt to save them (and MoCo families) from the disaster they are creating.

The current plan will backfire for many reasons:

- there is way too many new magnets; some of them are highly specialized programs completely inappropriate and/or unnecessary at high school level
- when almost every program is called magnet, nothing is – the plan defeats the whole idea of magnets being designed to challenge academically advanced kids
- placing magnets at top schools defeats the idea of strengthening less fortunate schools through adding new classes and attracting quality students
- placing magnets at very bottom performing schools gives little chance such magnets to succeed as very few will send kids there
- new magnets have clearly watered-down curriculums compared to today’s top magnets which can hardly be in anyone’s interest

As a result, this 30-new-magnets plan will create magnets in name only and ruin MoCo reputation among college admission professionals, while not helping anybody.

But let’s assume that status quo is unacceptable for reasons stated many times – lack of access and equity. Instead of introducing never heard of magnets, why not keep it simple and expand the programs that are well established and successful. For example:

- four regions, each with seven or eight schools, reasonably diverse
- two magnets in each region – one that mimic Blair STEM magnet and one that mimic RBIM – one for STEM driven students and one for humanities driven students; everything else at this point in life for students is a distraction and waste of limited resources
- don’t place magnets in the top two schools academically in any given region as they probably already have rich advanced class offerings
- don’t place magnets in the bottom two schools academically in any given region as they will attract very few students

Benefits:

- you only need to install five new magnets (Blair, Poolesville and RBIM already exist)
- there is a much less of a risk that new magnets will fail – they will follow successful examples, have highly relevant curriculums and draw students from 7-8 schools instead of just 4-5 as currently proposed
- the number of spots for academically advanced students will approximately triple compared to what we have today
- bus rides for most magnet kids will be shorter compared to what we have today

As for equity, equity cannot be fixed with new magnets. That is not what magnets are for. So you offer an art magnet and somehow it is helping with equity. It does not. It just creates false sense that you are doing something. Equity should be fixed with new class offerings (AP type classes that actually prepare you for most majors in college) in all high schools. So instead of wasting resources on magnets such as arts and bio-engineering, spend money and energy on hiring teachers and introducing advanced classes in all schools that currently don’t have them. It doesn’t matter that there may not be enough interest today in some schools. Offer challenging classes and smart kids will come.

The critical point you are forgetting is that Blair, Poolesville and RBIM are not the only programs in the county right now. There is a Visual Arts magnet already. BioEngineering exist at Wheaton currently. In fact its lead teacher just won the PLTW Teacher of the Year award. There are also many programs in individual schools that have come about in order to give students things because access was limited.

A better recommendation might be to review the individual programs to determine which ones could be consolidated into a main program based on the program coordinators/teacher collaborating.

You are missing there are a lot of qualified kids and few slots for those programs and at schools that have few offerings, its not equity for them to go without so your kids can have.

No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

Of course they are, isn't that why you are arguing to reduce the number of magnets. No magnets for a W school or BCC is ok as they have the courses, but for other schools that have the bare minimum and not even enough classes to graduate so kids are forced to MC, its a huge deal. Especially when you are talking lower income schools, where parents are told to buy cars as there is not easy bus service to MC, which creates a huge inequity. i

[Anonymous]

No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

Of course they are, isn't that why you are arguing to reduce the number of magnets. No magnets for a W school or BCC is ok as they have the courses, but for other schools that have the bare minimum and not even enough classes to graduate so kids are forced to MC, its a huge deal. Especially when you are talking lower income schools, where parents are told to buy cars as there is not easy bus service to MC, which creates a huge inequity. i

DP

So instead of arguing to invest in better class offerings in all schools as OP talks about at the end, you want them to invest in creating 30 magnets, many of which are highly dubious. Is making a mockery of a magnet system the only way to offer courses to kids that lack options in their schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

Of course they are, isn't that why you are arguing to reduce the number of magnets. No magnets for a W school or BCC is ok as they have the courses, but for other schools that have the bare minimum and not even enough classes to graduate so kids are forced to MC, its a huge deal. Especially when you are talking lower income schools, where parents are told to buy cars as there is not easy bus service to MC, which creates a huge inequity. i

DP

So instead of arguing to invest in better class offerings in all schools as OP talks about at the end, you want them to invest in creating 30 magnets, many of which are highly dubious. Is making a mockery of a magnet system the only way to offer courses to kids that lack options in their schools?

I don’t want more magnets but I’m also realistic that either way nothing really changes in terms of home schools. This model creates more inequality but removing the DCC as at least with the DCC it was easier to have school choice with the distance between schools.

[Anonymous]

If I were designing the regional programs, I would include a better process to select students for the selective programs. Choosing kids for programs based on a single MAP-M or MAP-R data point and a limited subset of class grades is not a robust way to select the best students.

MAP is a test of exposure to concepts and not a test of cognitive ability and there are so many Rockville cram schools charging parents thousands of dollars to prep their kids for these tests and it becomes meaningless.
-Using both MAP and COGAT scores would be far more robust.
-Using both MAP -M and MAP-R scores for selection rather than just MAP-M for STEM and MAP-R for IB would allow strong all-around students to get selected
-Using multiple MAP data points over a year rather than a single testing date would ensure kids don’t just cram for one test and test high as a fluke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

Of course they are, isn't that why you are arguing to reduce the number of magnets. No magnets for a W school or BCC is ok as they have the courses, but for other schools that have the bare minimum and not even enough classes to graduate so kids are forced to MC, its a huge deal. Especially when you are talking lower income schools, where parents are told to buy cars as there is not easy bus service to MC, which creates a huge inequity. i

DP

So instead of arguing to invest in better class offerings in all schools as OP talks about at the end, you want them to invest in creating 30 magnets, many of which are highly dubious. Is making a mockery of a magnet system the only way to offer courses to kids that lack options in their schools?

I don’t want more magnets but I’m also realistic that either way nothing really changes in terms of home schools. This model creates more inequality but removing the DCC as at least with the DCC it was easier to have school choice with the distance between schools.

This is happening regardless of what people think or want. Even if it’s a disaster MCPS will sing its praise. The BOE and Country Council are the only ones who can stop this train wreck but they aren’t doing anything.

DCC is far better. I want students to have their wants and needs met without having to leave their home school and if they do mcps should provide door to door transportation.

[Anonymous]

Like the pp, I want students to have their wants and needs met at their home school. We dont need to create oodles of fake magnets (see IB at Kennedy). MCPS, once the shining stat of Montgomery County, has become a joke. As wealthy parents opt for private, the decline will become greater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like the pp, I want students to have their wants and needs met at their home school. We dont need to create oodles of fake magnets (see IB at Kennedy). MCPS, once the shining stat of Montgomery County, has become a joke. As wealthy parents opt for private, the decline will become greater.

Of course they are all fake. Did you expect anything different? With no extra funding, its in name only and they cannot even fulfill some of these programs due to lack of staffing.

The wealthy parents will be ok as their schools have the advanced classes. The wealthier famileis in other areas will have to move within the count, outside of the county, or go private. It will create a further decline in some schools. But, this is what MCPS and some families clearly want.

[Anonymous]

The Poolesville program isn’t just SMCS and humanities. It also has Global Ecology which imho is the best magnet program MCPS offers. Unique, hands on, real world experiences, magnet level science and social studies (and even math if you can handle the classes). A true gem. The teachers are dedicated and amazing, some traveling from pretty far because of this amazing program. Not sure how feasible it is to replicate but this program is the true crown jewel of MCPS. I’m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

Of course they are, isn't that why you are arguing to reduce the number of magnets. No magnets for a W school or BCC is ok as they have the courses, but for other schools that have the bare minimum and not even enough classes to graduate so kids are forced to MC, its a huge deal. Especially when you are talking lower income schools, where parents are told to buy cars as there is not easy bus service to MC, which creates a huge inequity. i

DP

So instead of arguing to invest in better class offerings in all schools as OP talks about at the end, you want them to invest in creating 30 magnets, many of which are highly dubious. Is making a mockery of a magnet system the only way to offer courses to kids that lack options in their schools?

I don’t want more magnets but I’m also realistic that either way nothing really changes in terms of home schools. This model creates more inequality but removing the DCC as at least with the DCC it was easier to have school choice with the distance between schools.

There are multiple people responding. I'm not arguing for reducing the magnets or a wholesale increase of any and every program. I also recognize that this is not just an expansion of the magnets. It's a review and setting of programs to benefit the district which includes the magnets. I actively argue for invest in all schools. But I also know that have stretch and exploratory options/opportunities is beneficial, but can't be setup everywhere we there are 27 HS. What this needs to be about is review of programs to determine reasonable expansion of magnets and quality programs across the district, as well as review of implementation and selection of courses in HS generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is advocating for kids going without so a few kids can have offerings. This is why the program analysis offers expansion of programs and focus on quality High Schools. Whether all the current programs should be expanded or some is reasonable questions, but one shouldn't just assume that SMCS for Blair/Poolesville and IB from Richard Montgomery are the only ones that should be considered. Just because you don't value BioEngineering or Art doesn't mean there are not kids who do or will. Oh and art is part of the Humanities.

Of course they are, isn't that why you are arguing to reduce the number of magnets. No magnets for a W school or BCC is ok as they have the courses, but for other schools that have the bare minimum and not even enough classes to graduate so kids are forced to MC, its a huge deal. Especially when you are talking lower income schools, where parents are told to buy cars as there is not easy bus service to MC, which creates a huge inequity. i

DP

So instead of arguing to invest in better class offerings in all schools as OP talks about at the end, you want them to invest in creating 30 magnets, many of which are highly dubious. Is making a mockery of a magnet system the only way to offer courses to kids that lack options in their schools?

I don’t want more magnets but I’m also realistic that either way nothing really changes in terms of home schools. This model creates more inequality but removing the DCC as at least with the DCC it was easier to have school choice with the distance between schools.

There are multiple people responding. I'm not arguing for reducing the magnets or a wholesale increase of any and every program. I also recognize that this is not just an expansion of the magnets. It's a review and setting of programs to benefit the district which includes the magnets. I actively argue for invest in all schools. But I also know that have stretch and exploratory options/opportunities is beneficial, but can't be setup everywhere we there are 27 HS. What this needs to be about is review of programs to determine reasonable expansion of magnets and quality programs across the district, as well as review of implementation and selection of courses in HS generally.

There are multiple people responding. I'm not arguing for reducing the magnets or a wholesale increase of any and every program. I also recognize that this is not just an expansion of the magnets. It's a review and setting of programs to benefit the district which includes the magnets. I actively argue for invest in all schools. But I also know that have stretch and exploratory options/opportunities is beneficial, but can't be setup everywhere we there are 27 HS. What this needs to be about is review of programs to determine reasonable expansion of magnets and quality programs across the district, as well as review of implementation and selection of courses in HS generally

[Anonymous]

Perfect OP. Great plan! Yes. 100!

[Anonymous]

If i would design, I would not even bother to start the regional boundary study. 3 magnets (richard montgonery, blair and poolesville) are good enough. I think I would just rather pick a few moderate FARM schools (two in upper county, two in mid county, and two in lower county) to try out a few new programs to attract other interested or gifted students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you’re not the one designing it. You are not an educator or an administrator and your perspective is limited to your own experience. An arts magnet changed my kid’s life, and a bioengineering magnet set my friend’s kid on the road to pre-med.

The arts at our school is a waste of time. Teacher barely puts in the effort.

That won’t be the person teaching at an art magnet.

DP. My DS had a really rough start in life. Seven or eight schools by 8th grade. Four different family foster placements in a six year period. We adopted him at 14. MCPS was a huge culture shock but he blossomed in HS because of a passionate arts teachers and is now studying art in college.

That's great you adopted him and you had a good experience but things change year to year. We have had to do everything privately to get that great experience.

This doesn’t actually speak to arts magnets but the role of arts access (which comar actually mandates and MCPS just doesn’t do) at all levels of K-12 education.