New petition asking for critical changes to the proposed regional model
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
@Daniel - I am guessing you are the OP of the thread or in this forum
While I agree with you on having 3 regional magnets, your proposed regions is disproportionate. You have: Region A: (Largely composed of MCPS’s proposed regions 1, 3, and 4) Contains BCC, Blair, Churchill, Einstein, Kennedy, Northwood, Richard Montgomery, Walter Johnson, Wheaton, Whitman, Woodward, and Wootton. Existing IB programs at Richard Montgomery and Kennedy. Existing STEM program at Blair. Region B: (Largely composed of MCPS’s proposed regions 2 and 5) Contains Blake, Crown, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Magruder, Paint Branch, Rockville, Sherwood, Springbrook, and Watkins Mill. Existing IB programs at Springbrook and Watkins Mill. New STEM program at either Gaithersburg or Magruder. Region C: (Similar to MCPS’s proposed region 6) Contains Clarksburg, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, and Seneca Valley. IB program at Seneca Valley (currently local, becomes regional). Existing STEM program at Poolesville Region A has 12 schools Region B has 10 schools Region C has 5 schools Region C needs more schools. Region A also has Springbrook IB and Kennedy IB programs so why should RM be in Region A? Move RM and Churchill to Region B in your proposal. Move Damascus and Crown/Wootton@Crown from B to C. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KaIiSoVlQFFm8rlgn4HCe-ePXoC8RtCeYHtplPREItY/edit?tab=t.0
School Acceptance Rate Kennedy 97% Richard Montgomery 19% Springbrook 81% Watkins Mill 62% The regional IB programs have a much higher acceptance rate than Richard Montgomery, which is unsurprising but clearly illustrates the difference in student demand between a high-performing program and lower-performing ones. Also worth noting is that all three of the regional IB programs are under capacity, whereas Richard Montgomery is full. This means that the regional IBs can accept all students that meet their standards, but it also means that Richard Montgomery can set a higher standard for those that it does accept. The fact that the regional IBs are not full is also a clear indication of how unattractive these regional IB programs are to students. Many students that are rejected from the Richard Montgomery IB choose to stay in their home schools rather than attend the regional IBs. Removing the option of going to Richard Montgomery via a regional model is not likely to change this dynamic. ___________________________ Above is the reason why the 6 regional program will not be successful and needs to be done in phases. If the home school is in a better neighborhood, kids will not be making the trek to a school with high FARMS such as Watkins Mill. Progress has to happen slowly not rushed. You also have to take into account which schools are sending the most students to these existing magnets and split them up - put 2 or 3 of these schools together in one region so they have the cohort too. Regional magnets will most certainly be watered down in the initial years but unless the schools sending these smart kids are split evenly between the regions, this will not be successful. |
Anonymous
It's comforting to know this is the case. |
Anonymous
And unfortunately no one is opposing her. We need a serious write-in campaign for a better candidate. |
Anonymous
Who is Daniel? |
Anonymous
They won't increase transportation options. They probably won't increase program size either, since they won't want to add more bus routes. Transportation will probably cost more than the programs themselves. |
Anonymous
The divide in high scorers is far greater among regions than is the divide in cognitive ability. A more successful approach would be 1) better to identify and support that ability prior to high school, ensuring a manageable cohort in each region (hopefully, at each school), and 2) to dictate that program rigor be similar across regions, making offers likely to be accepted due to their presenting a meaningful benefit to those interested in that particular program subject vs. remaining at a home school. |
Anonymous
| We all know this petition was either written by magnet parents or Einstein Multi-Variable Calculus mom. |
Anonymous
Or design team members who got sick of MCPS ignoring them. |
Anonymous
Why hello, Opportunity Hoarder! Fancy meeting you here! |
Anonymous
Asking for a budget before approving the proposal is opportunity hoarding? Ok. |
Anonymous
Have you not read OLO Report 2026-2? Those petition points come directly from that document. I wanna know why Council member Leudtke has been so silent since the report was released. She is the one that asked for this data! |
Anonymous
Why no transparency in who wrote it? |
Anonymous
This is like the 4th time just in this short thread that someone has insinuated it is untrustworthy clearly without bothering to look at it, where they would see the names of a couple of likely authors among the first several signers. |