Program analysis webinars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Einstein parents taking over every single program analysis thread? There is plenty of hate to go around about the prigram analysis from every single school. Yet Einstein parents feel the need to dominate all these threads.

There are a lot of Einstein parents here because there is a lot of concern at Einstein. It feels like we are being uniquely screwed over. I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether, perhaps because they are getting nicer facilities. My older child came to Einstein not really caring much about VAPA yet it quickly became the highlight of his high school experience. I want the same for my younger kid.

But they're not moving VAPA to Northwood. Northwood has a performing arts-focused academy already, just like Einstein does. The new program will be criteria-based, unlike either current program.

+1 I don't understand why people are saying stuff that just isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man...you go do something for a few hours and this happens.

Hoping to keep that unproductive back-and-forth at bay, I'll again suggest folks look at the 10/01/2025 12:47 "needle" post back on page 4. Sure, it's important to relieve overcrowding, but it's also important to ensure relative parity of opportunity related to educational experience.

This thread, at least as titled, is related to the program analysis. As long as the likely effect of that plan is that, across the populations, families would more typically place the preference needle to have their child be zoned to one school instead of another (from the perspective of the likely academic opportunities between that available locally and that available via magnet, including the likelihood of being selected for a preferred magnet), and as long as there is an alternate arrangement of magnets and/or alternate resource paradigms possible that would tend to shift that average needle position to the center, it is reasonable to argue in favor of those alternatives.

I mean, you could argue against such alternatives, but it would be from a stance handicapped by the relatively unjust result.

Omg you think you are a good writer but you are terrible

Excellent rejoinder.

Now, back to reasoned debate...

Nobody is debating you because nobody wants to untangle your word salad

"Word salad" applies to statements made without meaning or with words thrown randomly together. The post incorporated a complex sentence -- one that might be considered "run-on" and/or requiring some attention to decode -- but "word salad" is a misnomer.

However, to unwind it a bit...

The proposal arising from the program analysis should hew close to the idea that any student within the system should have a reasonably similar academic experience to that of any other similarly-able student within the system. That should include local course options, magnet program availability & liklihood of admission, and associated access considerations. That should be regardless of where within the county they live.

No proposal will be perfect in this regard. However, the current proposal exhibits some rather obvious misses where alternatives exist. The "needle" thought experiment might be useful in identifying those misses. If wishing to uphold its commitment to equity, MCPS might do well to make associated adjusments.

[Anonymous]

So technically not moving it but the program at Einstein has been a big draw for other DCC kids, much more-so than Northwood’s. MCPS claims it will be preserved as a local program but there are other factors driving kids away from Einstein which will pull resources away from local programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Einstein parents taking over every single program analysis thread? There is plenty of hate to go around about the prigram analysis from every single school. Yet Einstein parents feel the need to dominate all these threads.

There are a lot of Einstein parents here because there is a lot of concern at Einstein. It feels like we are being uniquely screwed over. I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether, perhaps because they are getting nicer facilities. My older child came to Einstein not really caring much about VAPA yet it quickly became the highlight of his high school experience. I want the same for my younger kid.

But they're not moving VAPA to Northwood. Northwood has a performing arts-focused academy already, just like Einstein does. The new program will be criteria-based, unlike either current program.

You may have missed the earlier thoughts on the matter:

Northwood's magnet will draw performing arts students from Einstein who, under the current system, almost certainly would stay at Einstein.

Students from the rest of the DCC (Northwood included) who, under the current paradigm, typically would choose Einstein for its performing arts program no longer will be able to do so.

Each of these factors will reduce Einstein's VAPA program enrollment, with nothing in the offing to bolster that enrollment.

When a program's enrollment declines, MCPS's custom is to reduce class offerings within that program or eliminate the program, altogether.

This predictable outcome is not good for the Einstein community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Einstein parents taking over every single program analysis thread? There is plenty of hate to go around about the prigram analysis from every single school. Yet Einstein parents feel the need to dominate all these threads.

There are a lot of Einstein parents here because there is a lot of concern at Einstein. It feels like we are being uniquely screwed over. I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether, perhaps because they are getting nicer facilities. My older child came to Einstein not really caring much about VAPA yet it quickly became the highlight of his high school experience. I want the same for my younger kid.

But they're not moving VAPA to Northwood. Northwood has a performing arts-focused academy already, just like Einstein does. The new program will be criteria-based, unlike either current program.

You may have missed the earlier thoughts on the matter:

Northwood's magnet will draw performing arts students from Einstein who, under the current system, almost certainly would stay at Einstein.

Students from the rest of the DCC (Northwood included) who, under the current paradigm, typically would choose Einstein for its performing arts program no longer will be able to do so.

Each of these factors will reduce Einstein's VAPA program enrollment, with nothing in the offing to bolster that enrollment.

When a program's enrollment declines, MCPS's custom is to reduce class offerings within that program or eliminate the program, altogether.

This predictable outcome is not good for the Einstein community.

The PP stated "I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether" - this is patently false. VAPA isn't being moved. A new program is being placed at Northwood, and PP wishes it would be placed at Einstein instead.

Yes, creating lots of magnet programs has the potential to move motivated and well resourced kids out of their home schools. This is a bigger problem for schools with lower income student populations. 7 magnet programs for 5 schools is a little bonkers. I don't think Einstein is really being uniquely screwed over. It has the lowest FARMS rate in the DCC so I can see the basis for putting more magnets in Blair and Northwood. I don't think BCC really "needs" a magnet, much less two of them, but this is more questioning of the magnets themselves rather than their location. I assume it is a way to have a couple of programs that are reasonably close to Whitman to make it seem "fair"/reduce travel times for kids in the west. But based on current data there isn't much demand from Whitman for IB anyway.

It looks like this analysis accounted only for special programs and not the availability of advanced courses at wealthier schools. For example, in the program asset map, Whitman is listed as not having "advanced science/math" but it seems from people here that it does have more advanced math and science courses than say Einstein. This entire process assumes all students and schools have the same needs for special programs, but they don't.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.

Tell MCPS that. They might even listen.

Or people might do their own research and realize that there is already a bunch of local programs across the county with various criteria, levels of resources and support and also several types missing meaning kids in those regions miss out.

Hopefully what this does is bring some standardization to programs, true evaluation of ALL programs, and opportunity to a greater number of students.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.

Tell MCPS that. They might even listen.

Or people might do their own research and realize that there is already a bunch of local programs across the county with various criteria, levels of resources and support and also several types missing meaning kids in those regions miss out.

Hopefully what this does is bring some standardization to programs, true evaluation of ALL programs, and opportunity to a greater number of students.

Yeah, what you're saying (as well as the real inequities in access to magnet programs) is why I started out thinking that the program analysis was a good idea in theory.

I still think that it's a good idea in theory. But in practice they are rushing through it in a totally irresponsible way-- they did not even bother to gather information on which local programs are at each high school before designing their program plans (let alone getting detailed information about what each local program involves, how much interest there is in it, and how successful it is)! This might have been okay if they were doing it to get a rough draft plan down for folks to respond to and then were genuinely open to feedback and revisions and had some humility about what they know and don't know. Instead, they skipped many obvious steps needed to come up with a genuinely good plan, don't care whether anyone outside of Central Office likes or wants any of it, and have decided to present it as a done deal from the first time they presented it rather than inviting feedback and insight on things they haven't thought about and being open to making changes.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.

Tell MCPS that. They might even listen.

Or people might do their own research and realize that there is already a bunch of local programs across the county with various criteria, levels of resources and support and also several types missing meaning kids in those regions miss out.

Hopefully what this does is bring some standardization to programs, true evaluation of ALL programs, and opportunity to a greater number of students.

Yeah, what you're saying (as well as the real inequities in access to magnet programs) is why I started out thinking that the program analysis was a good idea in theory.

I still think that it's a good idea in theory. But in practice they are rushing through it in a totally irresponsible way-- they did not even bother to gather information on which local programs are at each high school before designing their program plans (let alone getting detailed information about what each local program involves, how much interest there is in it, and how successful it is)! This might have been okay if they were doing it to get a rough draft plan down for folks to respond to and then were genuinely open to feedback and revisions and had some humility about what they know and don't know. Instead, they skipped many obvious steps needed to come up with a genuinely good plan, don't care whether anyone outside of Central Office likes or wants any of it, and have decided to present it as a done deal from the first time they presented it rather than inviting feedback and insight on things they haven't thought about and being open to making changes.

Yep. All of this.

[Anonymous]

On top of all that Einstein does not have strong STEM (they do have a few good teachers in STEM) program so removing the arts, and not having the academics will have families move or possibly go private. If the arts is gone, we will not send our youngest to Einstein as between that and limited academics there is no good reason to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On top of all that Einstein does not have strong STEM (they do have a few good teachers in STEM) program so removing the arts, and not having the academics will have families move or possibly go private. If the arts is gone, we will not send our youngest to Einstein as between that and limited academics there is no good reason to go.

They're not removing the arts. There are other problems with the proposed regional structure that you seem to be intentionally or unintentionally distracting from with blatantly false/hyperbolic statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Einstein parents taking over every single program analysis thread? There is plenty of hate to go around about the prigram analysis from every single school. Yet Einstein parents feel the need to dominate all these threads.

There are a lot of Einstein parents here because there is a lot of concern at Einstein. It feels like we are being uniquely screwed over. I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether, perhaps because they are getting nicer facilities. My older child came to Einstein not really caring much about VAPA yet it quickly became the highlight of his high school experience. I want the same for my younger kid.

But they're not moving VAPA to Northwood. Northwood has a performing arts-focused academy already, just like Einstein does. The new program will be criteria-based, unlike either current program.

You may have missed the earlier thoughts on the matter:

Northwood's magnet will draw performing arts students from Einstein who, under the current system, almost certainly would stay at Einstein.

Students from the rest of the DCC (Northwood included) who, under the current paradigm, typically would choose Einstein for its performing arts program no longer will be able to do so.

Each of these factors will reduce Einstein's VAPA program enrollment, with nothing in the offing to bolster that enrollment.

When a program's enrollment declines, MCPS's custom is to reduce class offerings within that program or eliminate the program, altogether.

This predictable outcome is not good for the Einstein community.

The PP stated "I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether" - this is patently false. VAPA isn't being moved. A new program is being placed at Northwood, and PP wishes it would be placed at Einstein instead.

Yes, creating lots of magnet programs has the potential to move motivated and well resourced kids out of their home schools. This is a bigger problem for schools with lower income student populations. 7 magnet programs for 5 schools is a little bonkers. I don't think Einstein is really being uniquely screwed over. It has the lowest FARMS rate in the DCC so I can see the basis for putting more magnets in Blair and Northwood. I don't think BCC really "needs" a magnet, much less two of them, but this is more questioning of the magnets themselves rather than their location. I assume it is a way to have a couple of programs that are reasonably close to Whitman to make it seem "fair"/reduce travel times for kids in the west. But based on current data there isn't much demand from Whitman for IB anyway.

It looks like this analysis accounted only for special programs and not the availability of advanced courses at wealthier schools. For example, in the program asset map, Whitman is listed as not having "advanced science/math" but it seems from people here that it does have more advanced math and science courses than say Einstein. This entire process assumes all students and schools have the same needs for special programs, but they don't.

On their not "moving" VAPA:

If VAPA declines, as might be relatively predictable given the outline of conditions/effects noted in the prior post, it may well be shut (also noted in the prior post). I think you argue semantics, rather than substance, with the "moving" poster in this case.

On their not "uniquely screwing over" Einstein:

Einstein loses the tug of war with Northwood over Performing Arts. (criteria-based)
Einstein loses the tug of war with B-CC over IB. (criteria-based)
Einstein loses the tug of war with Whitman over Languages. (interest-based, but with promise of some academic heft)
The new Humanities magnet is placed at B-CC. (criteria-based)
Not that it is likely for Einstein, but the Engineering magnet goes to Blair. (interest-based, but also with promise of academic heft)
Einstein treads water with VAC.
Einstein "wins" the interest-based magnet for its Education program (extant at each of the 5 schools) and gets an interest-based Design magnet -- neither likely to draw with heft.

It may not be unique across the entire system, but it clearly is getting the short stick -- and by far -- across this region, with the needle veering toward each of the other schools when comparing.

[Anonymous]

Einstein will have by far the smallest capacity of all the schools in its region, so I can see why there wouldn't be room for the most popular programs to be housed there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On top of all that Einstein does not have strong STEM (they do have a few good teachers in STEM) program so removing the arts, and not having the academics will have families move or possibly go private. If the arts is gone, we will not send our youngest to Einstein as between that and limited academics there is no good reason to go.

They're not removing the arts. There are other problems with the proposed regional structure that you seem to be intentionally or unintentionally distracting from with blatantly false/hyperbolic statements.

Most kids, including mine would apply to Northwood. If Einstein loses a few hundred kids, they will lose more staff. Who will that be? They don’t offer many advanced classes and the advanced classes each year are shrinking. You don’t seem to get the draw is the arts. You pull the best of the artsy kids, have limited staff so fewer programs which is already limited, and that destroys the school. We only went for the arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are Einstein parents taking over every single program analysis thread? There is plenty of hate to go around about the prigram analysis from every single school. Yet Einstein parents feel the need to dominate all these threads.

There are a lot of Einstein parents here because there is a lot of concern at Einstein. It feels like we are being uniquely screwed over. I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether, perhaps because they are getting nicer facilities. My older child came to Einstein not really caring much about VAPA yet it quickly became the highlight of his high school experience. I want the same for my younger kid.

But they're not moving VAPA to Northwood. Northwood has a performing arts-focused academy already, just like Einstein does. The new program will be criteria-based, unlike either current program.

You may have missed the earlier thoughts on the matter:

Northwood's magnet will draw performing arts students from Einstein who, under the current system, almost certainly would stay at Einstein.

Students from the rest of the DCC (Northwood included) who, under the current paradigm, typically would choose Einstein for its performing arts program no longer will be able to do so.

Each of these factors will reduce Einstein's VAPA program enrollment, with nothing in the offing to bolster that enrollment.

When a program's enrollment declines, MCPS's custom is to reduce class offerings within that program or eliminate the program, altogether.

This predictable outcome is not good for the Einstein community.

The PP stated "I don’t understand moving a well established program that is extremely popular with the students to another school altogether" - this is patently false. VAPA isn't being moved. A new program is being placed at Northwood, and PP wishes it would be placed at Einstein instead.

Yes, creating lots of magnet programs has the potential to move motivated and well resourced kids out of their home schools. This is a bigger problem for schools with lower income student populations. 7 magnet programs for 5 schools is a little bonkers. I don't think Einstein is really being uniquely screwed over. It has the lowest FARMS rate in the DCC so I can see the basis for putting more magnets in Blair and Northwood. I don't think BCC really "needs" a magnet, much less two of them, but this is more questioning of the magnets themselves rather than their location. I assume it is a way to have a couple of programs that are reasonably close to Whitman to make it seem "fair"/reduce travel times for kids in the west. But based on current data there isn't much demand from Whitman for IB anyway.

It looks like this analysis accounted only for special programs and not the availability of advanced courses at wealthier schools. For example, in the program asset map, Whitman is listed as not having "advanced science/math" but it seems from people here that it does have more advanced math and science courses than say Einstein. This entire process assumes all students and schools have the same needs for special programs, but they don't.

On their not "moving" VAPA:

If VAPA declines, as might be relatively predictable given the outline of conditions/effects noted in the prior post, it may well be shut (also noted in the prior post). I think you argue semantics, rather than substance, with the "moving" poster in this case.

On their not "uniquely screwing over" Einstein:

Einstein loses the tug of war with Northwood over Performing Arts. (criteria-based)
Einstein loses the tug of war with B-CC over IB. (criteria-based)
Einstein loses the tug of war with Whitman over Languages. (interest-based, but with promise of some academic heft)
The new Humanities magnet is placed at B-CC. (criteria-based)
Not that it is likely for Einstein, but the Engineering magnet goes to Blair. (interest-based, but also with promise of academic heft)
Einstein treads water with VAC.
Einstein "wins" the interest-based magnet for its Education program (extant at each of the 5 schools) and gets an interest-based Design magnet -- neither likely to draw with heft.

It may not be unique across the entire system, but it clearly is getting the short stick -- and by far -- across this region, with the needle veering toward each of the other schools when comparing.

I don’t think kids will care about IB. How many students will pick education? And, I doubt many kids would choose Whitman for a variety of reasons. But, this does destroy Einstein. On top of your list, reducing students, means reducing staff, so what classes will be reduced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Einstein will have by far the smallest capacity of all the schools in its region, so I can see why there wouldn't be room for the most popular programs to be housed there.

It will get even smaller if families bail.