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:

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.

All students get staffing regardless of which school they attend. Moving the staff isn't an extra resource.

[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:

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.

All students get staffing regardless of which school they attend. Moving the staff isn't an extra resource.

If staff aren't resources then I don't know what is? These staff will teach classes that won't be available to students left behind at low income schools due to "low interest" that is low because a high income school siphoned off half the interested students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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" ?

You are free to do some research on this if you are interested. GARE is a good source.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

What are the "basic and well-established practices" ?
[/quote]

You are free to do some research on this if you are interested. GARE is a good source.[/quote]

MCPS hires racial equity consultants and fillowa the steps in
https://www.racialequityalliance.org/viewdocument/racial-equity-toolkit-an-opportuni-2

[Anonymous]

[/quote]

You are free to do some research on this if you are interested. GARE is a good source.[/quote]

MCPS hires racial equity consultants and fillowa the steps in
https://www.racialequityalliance.org/viewdocument/racial-equity-toolkit-an-opportuni-2[/quote]

Their presentations on the regional program proposal demonstrate that they haven't done this in any meaningful way. It is all performative.

[Anonymous]

By the way a very baseline requirement for racially equitable policy design is community engagement with BIPOC communities. Not at the end when you have already decided what to do, but throughout the process. I haven't seen any evidence that they have done this in any substantial way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess you didn't attend the info zoom sessions in the last week.

[Anonymous]

At this point, since it looks like they are moving ahead with the regional magnet plan, how do they explain QO being in Region 5 and Damascus in Region 6. That needs to change.