Please sign this petition to continue countywide magnets

[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:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

100%. Finally, someone who gets it. All this talk about math, tests, academic excellence is not equitable. Kids should revel in mediocrity and celebrate it. Thank you MCPS. We appreciate your leadership and foresight.
I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?

Numbers scare me so we shouldn't have classes with scary numbers. STEM classes should be kids talking about their feelings, which anyone can do.

[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:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?

Numbers scare me so we shouldn't have classes with scary numbers. STEM classes should be kids talking about their feelings, which anyone can do.

Finally, someone who gets it. Doing well in math, science, academic excellence and winning awards is just not equitable. Kids should revel in mediocrity and celebrate it. Everyone should be at the same level. Thank you MCPS for your leadership and vision. We definitely don't need these over achievers spoiling our school system and communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would never sign something like this. The sense of entitlement attached to these programs and the false premise that only the anointed few can handle these programs is breathtaking. It's the "dilution" argument that really gets me. Is the student body at the University of Michigan somehow "diluted" because it's larger than Dartmouth? Is great instruction only appropriate for people who can afford (yes, afford) to undertake a punishing commute? Is your child's education somehow compromised by having to exercise a little patience or compassion? You want all the riffraff out, go found a charter in Potomac where you can require 300s on the MAP-M for entrance and then circle the wagons.

If you did what MCPS proposed, and chopped Dartmouth into into 3 separate schools and then increased admissions, then yes, it would be diluted. How can you not understand this? Do you really not understand that not every student is equally capable? Or do you believe that everyone performing as well or higher than your kid is equally capable, but all those "riffraff" are less capable? Or do you believe that we should make the county 100% magnet? That's a great idea! Give everyone the most advanced and enriched education! Quantum physics and Cell Biology for everyone, whether they can handle it or not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

You are good then, if you live on the west side of the county. High SES community means more rigor for you. If you don't live on the westside, you have reason to be concerned about watered-down curriculum.

Can’t we look to something like compacted math as an example of a program that is offered in every school and hasn’t been “watered down”? Can’t you apply this up the chain? Why does more access to students who qualify for a program automatically equal less rigor? Also, I hate all the anti-silver spring bias in this and similar threads. As if there aren’t plenty of wealthy families with kids in public school in the eastern part of the county, and as if only kids from wealthy families are smart or can qualify for/handle rigorous programs anyway. It’s laughable.

I live in Silver Spring and I'm a teacher. Take a look at the MD state school report cards in east county and understand that teachers adjust curriculum to meet the needs of students.

I don’t know what your point is. My point is that it’s false that wealthy (by which I mean UMC, because that’s really what we’re talking about) people don’t live in the eastern part of the county, and it’s also false that only kids from wealthy families are smart. Every single high school in MCPS has smart, high performing kids who would be smart in any school and who can meet the entry criteria. So MCPS should be able to provide this program at every school without “watering it down.” Your point is something else.

Every HS has smart and motivated students doesn’t mean every HS has same number of smart and highly-motivated students. How do you hold high-level courses if less than 5 students from a HS is capable to catch up? Doesn’t the current county-wide program provide best opportunities to these students by gathering together? I’m all in for providing basic high-level AP courses at each HS. This is what MCPS should be focusing on for equity. Tearing down the current successful programs would just cause more harm to really talented students in low SES cohorts.

Let me guess you are at a school where your kids get tons of advanced classes. If five kids need the class, then yes or transfer them to a school that has what they need and provide transportation. What you are saying is not equity.

That's what the petition is asking MCPS to preserve!

[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:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?

How do you know those kids are even the 99th % kids? Most of the Blair SMCS kids come from 2 high school clusters. HS Magnet selection is based on a single MAP-M or MAP-R data point--there's no COGAT or other test of cognitive ability involved. The audacity of parents to claim that their kids are the smartest in the county astounds me--the selection criteria are narrow and not indicative of ability, and the geographic range of students opting into these programs is so narrow .
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that a 95% MAP kid is performing far below the level of a 99% MAP kid--please enlighten us to explain your evidence if you have it.

Does winning state and national academic competitions count as evidence?

No. I'm sorry you're having problems with the concept of evidence, but all you have is a theory, and a wrong one at that. I hypothesize (without evidence) that if more students from more geographic areas were given the opportunity for advanced coursework that MCPS would win more state and national academic competitions. I do not believe that Blair SMCS is capturing the most talented students in the county when 40% of its students are coming from 2 high school areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

You are good then, if you live on the west side of the county. High SES community means more rigor for you. If you don't live on the westside, you have reason to be concerned about watered-down curriculum.

Can’t we look to something like compacted math as an example of a program that is offered in every school and hasn’t been “watered down”? Can’t you apply this up the chain? Why does more access to students who qualify for a program automatically equal less rigor? Also, I hate all the anti-silver spring bias in this and similar threads. As if there aren’t plenty of wealthy families with kids in public school in the eastern part of the county, and as if only kids from wealthy families are smart or can qualify for/handle rigorous programs anyway. It’s laughable.

No one is opposing "more access to students to qualify". The petition is asking to to preserve the programs where very few students qualify, while expanding access to programs for everyone, like your Compacted Math example. We can compare the situation to the TPMS magnet post-lottery, where students are dropping out and returning to home school because the magnet is now providing a lesser education than the home school.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?

How do you know those kids are even the 99th % kids? Most of the Blair SMCS kids come from 2 high school clusters. HS Magnet selection is based on a single MAP-M or MAP-R data point--there's no COGAT or other test of cognitive ability involved. The audacity of parents to claim that their kids are the smartest in the county astounds me--the selection criteria are narrow and not indicative of ability, and the geographic range of students opting into these programs is so narrow .
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that a 95% MAP kid is performing far below the level of a 99% MAP kid--please enlighten us to explain your evidence if you have it.

Does winning state and national academic competitions count as evidence?

No. I'm sorry you're having problems with the concept of evidence, but all you have is a theory, and a wrong one at that. I hypothesize (without evidence) that if more students from more geographic areas were given the opportunity for advanced coursework that MCPS would win more state and national academic competitions. I do not believe that Blair SMCS is capturing the most talented students in the county when 40% of its students are coming from 2 high school areas.

We tried that with TPMS. Guess what happened? The lower-performing kids who won the lottery to get the "advanced coursework" in the lottery lost STEM competitions to the kids who lost the lottery and were stuck with "non-advanced coursework" at their home schools. Then those kids who lost the lottery went to Blair and continued winning STEM competitions. But as you said, you prefer to argue "without evidence", so none of this matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

You are good then, if you live on the west side of the county. High SES community means more rigor for you. If you don't live on the westside, you have reason to be concerned about watered-down curriculum.

Can’t we look to something like compacted math as an example of a program that is offered in every school and hasn’t been “watered down”? Can’t you apply this up the chain? Why does more access to students who qualify for a program automatically equal less rigor? Also, I hate all the anti-silver spring bias in this and similar threads. As if there aren’t plenty of wealthy families with kids in public school in the eastern part of the county, and as if only kids from wealthy families are smart or can qualify for/handle rigorous programs anyway. It’s laughable.

I live in Silver Spring and I'm a teacher. Take a look at the MD state school report cards in east county and understand that teachers adjust curriculum to meet the needs of students.

I don’t know what your point is. My point is that it’s false that wealthy (by which I mean UMC, because that’s really what we’re talking about) people don’t live in the eastern part of the county, and it’s also false that only kids from wealthy families are smart. Every single high school in MCPS has smart, high performing kids who would be smart in any school and who can meet the entry criteria. So MCPS should be able to provide this program at every school without “watering it down.” Your point is something else.

Every HS has smart and motivated students doesn’t mean every HS has same number of smart and highly-motivated students. How do you hold high-level courses if less than 5 students from a HS is capable to catch up? Doesn’t the current county-wide program provide best opportunities to these students by gathering together? I’m all in for providing basic high-level AP courses at each HS. This is what MCPS should be focusing on for equity. Tearing down the current successful programs would just cause more harm to really talented students in low SES cohorts.

Let me guess you are at a school where your kids get tons of advanced classes. If five kids need the class, then yes or transfer them to a school that has what they need and provide transportation. What you are saying is not equity.

That's what the petition is asking MCPS to preserve!

yet my elementary school kid has 32 kids in their class which barely has enough room for desks. you can't always get what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never sign something like this. The sense of entitlement attached to these programs and the false premise that only the anointed few can handle these programs is breathtaking. It's the "dilution" argument that really gets me. Is the student body at the University of Michigan somehow "diluted" because it's larger than Dartmouth? Is great instruction only appropriate for people who can afford (yes, afford) to undertake a punishing commute? Is your child's education somehow compromised by having to exercise a little patience or compassion? You want all the riffraff out, go found a charter in Potomac where you can require 300s on the MAP-M for entrance and then circle the wagons.

If you did what MCPS proposed, and chopped Dartmouth into into 3 separate schools and then increased admissions, then yes, it would be diluted. How can you not understand this? Do you really not understand that not every student is equally capable? Or do you believe that everyone performing as well or higher than your kid is equally capable, but all those "riffraff" are less capable? Or do you believe that we should make the county 100% magnet? That's a great idea! Give everyone the most advanced and enriched education! Quantum physics and Cell Biology for everyone, whether they can handle it or not!

At each school, there should be a range of classes so all kids have the same opportunities. If a child can do higher-level level, don't they equally deserve the same opportunity. Why should your kids get it and mine not, when we all pay property and other taxes to fund the schools?

[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:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Screw those very few 99th% students in NEC who will not have adequate cohort and same opportunities as other regions. Here, I said it for you, W moms.

"W moms" want the magnet to stay, because we want our kids to be cohorted with those 99%ile NEC kids.

I'm a NEC mom with a kid in a magnet. Since my kid was in the CES program, I've disliked the fact that they take the really high performers (who can make the transportation work-I know a few who couldn't) out. Which leaves those left behind who can't/won't do transporation or don't win the lottery really in a lurch with even a smaller peer group. Talk about watered down! My kid was certainly frustrated in early elementary, but I'm all for trying something new that will be accessible to more students. My kid disagrees with me, FWIW.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?

How do you know those kids are even the 99th % kids? Most of the Blair SMCS kids come from 2 high school clusters. HS Magnet selection is based on a single MAP-M or MAP-R data point--there's no COGAT or other test of cognitive ability involved. The audacity of parents to claim that their kids are the smartest in the county astounds me--the selection criteria are narrow and not indicative of ability, and the geographic range of students opting into these programs is so narrow .
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that a 95% MAP kid is performing far below the level of a 99% MAP kid--please enlighten us to explain your evidence if you have it.

Does winning state and national academic competitions count as evidence?

No. I'm sorry you're having problems with the concept of evidence, but all you have is a theory, and a wrong one at that. I hypothesize (without evidence) that if more students from more geographic areas were given the opportunity for advanced coursework that MCPS would win more state and national academic competitions. I do not believe that Blair SMCS is capturing the most talented students in the county when 40% of its students are coming from 2 high school areas.

We tried that with TPMS. Guess what happened? The lower-performing kids who won the lottery to get the "advanced coursework" in the lottery lost STEM competitions to the kids who lost the lottery and were stuck with "non-advanced coursework" at their home schools. Then those kids who lost the lottery went to Blair and continued winning STEM competitions. But as you said, you prefer to argue "without evidence", so none of this matters.

No, some didn't get into Blair and were waitlisted and now don't get to do STEM or Stem competitions which puts them at a disadvantage for college. We have zero stem clubs and only the basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

You are good then, if you live on the west side of the county. High SES community means more rigor for you. If you don't live on the westside, you have reason to be concerned about watered-down curriculum.

Can’t we look to something like compacted math as an example of a program that is offered in every school and hasn’t been “watered down”? Can’t you apply this up the chain? Why does more access to students who qualify for a program automatically equal less rigor? Also, I hate all the anti-silver spring bias in this and similar threads. As if there aren’t plenty of wealthy families with kids in public school in the eastern part of the county, and as if only kids from wealthy families are smart or can qualify for/handle rigorous programs anyway. It’s laughable.

I live in Silver Spring and I'm a teacher. Take a look at the MD state school report cards in east county and understand that teachers adjust curriculum to meet the needs of students.

I don’t know what your point is. My point is that it’s false that wealthy (by which I mean UMC, because that’s really what we’re talking about) people don’t live in the eastern part of the county, and it’s also false that only kids from wealthy families are smart. Every single high school in MCPS has smart, high performing kids who would be smart in any school and who can meet the entry criteria. So MCPS should be able to provide this program at every school without “watering it down.” Your point is something else.

Every HS has smart and motivated students doesn’t mean every HS has same number of smart and highly-motivated students. How do you hold high-level courses if less than 5 students from a HS is capable to catch up? Doesn’t the current county-wide program provide best opportunities to these students by gathering together? I’m all in for providing basic high-level AP courses at each HS. This is what MCPS should be focusing on for equity. Tearing down the current successful programs would just cause more harm to really talented students in low SES cohorts.

Let me guess you are at a school where your kids get tons of advanced classes. If five kids need the class, then yes or transfer them to a school that has what they need and provide transportation. What you are saying is not equity.

That's what the petition is asking MCPS to preserve!

That's not what the peitition is trying to do. Its trying to keep the programs for a select few and the rest of our kids go without.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

You are good then, if you live on the west side of the county. High SES community means more rigor for you. If you don't live on the westside, you have reason to be concerned about watered-down curriculum.

Can’t we look to something like compacted math as an example of a program that is offered in every school and hasn’t been “watered down”? Can’t you apply this up the chain? Why does more access to students who qualify for a program automatically equal less rigor? Also, I hate all the anti-silver spring bias in this and similar threads. As if there aren’t plenty of wealthy families with kids in public school in the eastern part of the county, and as if only kids from wealthy families are smart or can qualify for/handle rigorous programs anyway. It’s laughable.

I live in Silver Spring and I'm a teacher. Take a look at the MD state school report cards in east county and understand that teachers adjust curriculum to meet the needs of students.

I don’t know what your point is. My point is that it’s false that wealthy (by which I mean UMC, because that’s really what we’re talking about) people don’t live in the eastern part of the county, and it’s also false that only kids from wealthy families are smart. Every single high school in MCPS has smart, high performing kids who would be smart in any school and who can meet the entry criteria. So MCPS should be able to provide this program at every school without “watering it down.” Your point is something else.

Every HS has smart and motivated students doesn’t mean every HS has same number of smart and highly-motivated students. How do you hold high-level courses if less than 5 students from a HS is capable to catch up? Doesn’t the current county-wide program provide best opportunities to these students by gathering together? I’m all in for providing basic high-level AP courses at each HS. This is what MCPS should be focusing on for equity. Tearing down the current successful programs would just cause more harm to really talented students in low SES cohorts.

Let me guess you are at a school where your kids get tons of advanced classes. If five kids need the class, then yes or transfer them to a school that has what they need and provide transportation. What you are saying is not equity.

That's what the petition is asking MCPS to preserve!

That's not what the peitition is trying to do. Its trying to keep the programs for a select few and the rest of our kids go without.

Nonsense. I’m sorry but how dare you impugn these students’ experiences and motives. More programs can be created, but MCPS doesn’t need to dismantle the current ones. As you’ve repeatedly been told, the cohort experience is important. My child was bullied daily for being “different” and found their people at a magnet. If we cater to special education (which of course we should) then we should also be able to differentiate instruction for those fast learners who need it.

[Anonymous]

This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

[Anonymous]

Aug 25, 2025
I am providing the following update with a summary of the proposal presented by the school district to the board of education, along with my commentary. Please comment or contact me directly with your feedback.

Summary of Proposed Changes from Board of Education Meeting

Issues of "equity and access" are at the core of the proposed changes. The goal for the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is to "move from a model of scarcity to a model of abundance." She indicated that for many students, attending a special program "requires long bus rides." She stated that "expanding pathways and programs" will "strengthen our district." The superintendent later added that "assets [special programs] are all over the place without any real focus."

There will be public information meetings to give information to the community in September and October. It has been decided that in the areas of mathematics and business/finance, every school should have advanced courses like Calculus, rather than making Business/Finance one of the special programs.

In the area of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), the proposal divides STEM into four strands--Science Math (Advanced), Technology (IT), Technology (Engineering), and Science Related CTE (non healthcare). Poolesville and Montgomery Blair High Schools were identified as the only "Science Math (Advanced)" programs currently existing; one would have to be built in each new region that does not currently have one. On slides with a list of advanced technology courses, AP Computer Science A (Java) is listed as the highest possible course. Schools with other STEM related programs such as Project Lead the Way were identified as incumbent Technology (Engineering) schools within their regions.

The proposal indicated a position of a program coordinator for each special program, which would start as a part time position filled by a teacher in the program who also provides instruction, but would eventually be a full time position.

In regards to Poolesville, the Global Ecology Studies Program (GESP) was shown as a strand folded into the STEM/SMCS program. It is unclear whether the GESP curriculum is to be folded into the criteria-based SMCS curriculum in forming the new regional model, or whether GESP will remain a standalone program but only be open to Poolesville area students.

MCPS motivated the move to a regional model for programs based on their experience with the International Baccalaureate (IB) programs. Local IB programs struggled to compete against Richard Montgomery High School. Breaking up big large programs is part of the intention to strengthen the regional programs.

"We wanted to expand [the IB program] into … three schools … we worked really hard to try to level them to the same standard … but … the Richard Montgomery IB program is so highly established, very entrenched in our community [and] continued to be the one [that was] sought after."

The Board of Education expressed concern that the "same course" at different schools may not be of the same quality. MCPS stated "we'll come back to that" and that they would have to figure it out. The Board of Education questioned how new programs would be supported, not just financially, but in terms of training of teachers. The superintendent responded that "there's not a whole lot to add that's not part of the general curriculum already." MCPS indicated that "if we're offering a program in one place, it needs to be the same high quality in another place" and their proposed solution and budget indicates a two-week teacher training for "new to Magnet" plus a one week teacher externship. The county also indicated the development of collaboration between teachers of similar program across regions to promote consistency and a learning community.

Commentary

Our largest concerns are around the "critical mass effect" and around sufficient support to operate existing programs and new programs if they are created.

As documented in our petition and by numerous supporters who have posted here, one of the greatest benefits of the SMCS program has been the ability of students to learn from like-minded peers, even if they lived far from each other. We remain concerned about the reduction in this critical mass effect if like-minded peers are separated into six regions.

Our additional concern is related to having adequate resources to initiate and maintain special programs. MCPS admitted very openly the difficulty it had when trying to replicate the Richard Montgomery IB program, and how ultimately the spinoff programs failed to achieve the desired levels of success. When the SMCS program was created, teachers were provided with additional planning time during the school day to plan curriculum and co-teach to foster a cohort model. There were hundreds of paid professional development opportunities, not merely a three week process as proposed by the county. And funding was much more greatly available for state of the art equipment. Even now, in the existing SMCS program, additional planning time, teacher professional development opportunities, and budgets for state of the art technology have become severely reduced. We worry that the new programs would be programs in name only unless they were adequately funded to the same levels that SMCS was in its initiation phase.

Our loudest message must be--fund programs well enough to be proper programs. While we maintain that fewer schools enhances education through the critical mass effect, regardless of the number of schools that MCPS chooses to place advanced STEM programs in, each one must be adequately funded with extra planning time to foster a cohort model with coteaching, ample professional development, both initially and ongoing for staff in these programs, to become subject matter experts in advanced and emerging technologies, and adequate budgetary allocations for purchase of expensive advanced materials for student use in a special program. For the MCPS proposal of six regions to succeed, they must be willing to commit to this.