Bolded is proof that writing is not your strongest suit. But hey, your kid was in the IB program and that makes you an expert. Logic isn’t your strong suit either. I actually researched the program for my kid and decided it was not a good fit for the reasons I outlined above. Some people might find those arguments useful if they consider that choice. Then you’re whining that whatever I say is not valid because I don’t put my kid through the program. |
Or another way: Poster A: "I have an interest in RMIB." <some duscussion> Poster B: "RMIB is clearly superior as the criteria-based magnet." Poster C: "Why RM? All MCPS IB programs are the same!" Poster D: "Not exactly. Some MCPS IBs don't offer the same class levels, and that means that MCPS might not meet the student where they are." <more discussion, with useful clarifications on regional/local IBs> Poster E (maybe B?): "IB math levels don't matter when higher-level non-IB math is available, and IB, itself, isn't really that worthwhile. That's the experience of the Algebra 2 in 8th crowd." Poster F (conflating Posters D & E, responding to poster D): "You're terrible and don't know what you're talking about." Poster D: "Poster E and I are not the same. MCPS still isn't meeting the need equitably, though. PS -- IB can be really good if it meets students where they are." <posters continue ignoring the difference between D & E> |
And yet, by your own account, you seem to have gotten quite far. |
We get it. You're poster D. You want us to know two things: 1.) All IB programs are inferior to SMAC. 2.) Some IB programs are more inferior than others. The fact that several posters are lapping rhetorical rings around you, is lost upon you. But some, like me, have noticed and wonder if you are an example of why an entirely Stem-based foundation can be lacking. |
Please look at the just-past post. Whether due to complexity of writing or inattentive reading, you've conflated: "Not all MCPS IB programs are equal. MCPS should do a better job of providing enough seats with reasonable equivalence to meet all students where they are instead of under-seating and enabling better options for some than others. Lots of students, regardless of location, can benefit from advanced programming, and good IB programs would be a part of that. Equity (broadly defined) is important. (Not that narrowly defined equity isn't important.) Families should be aware as they make choices." with: "IB isn't all that. Better, higher-level math is available." |
Missed it, again. Take out #1 (that was Poster E). Rephrase #2 into, "IB can be great, but not all MCPS IB programs yet consistently offer classes at the higher level that might best meet some students where they are. Ask MCPS to do something about this and be aware in the meantime." If rhetorical lapping is occurring, here, it's from logical fallacies like the conflatory strawman, there, not from anything really countering the above quote. |
If equitable access to higher level math (which one, MVC?) is your concern, you can either get it elsewhere or maybe IB program is not a good fit for that student. You can’t have an MVC class for the one student once every other year that might want to take it. |
I can research a car, but without ever test driving it, I really don't know what it's like to drive the car. But, I'm more likely to take the opinion of someone who test drove the car than someone who only researched about it. My kid at least learned some critical thinking skills in their IBDP. So, yea, my kid and I are more of an expert on the IBDP than you are. |
As far as I can tell, this PP -hasn't done the IB Program -doesn't have a child who did the IB Program -hasn't taught in the IB Program -nonetheless has very strong opinions about the failings of the IB program -anonymously personally insults anonymous people on the internet |
Yep. A failure to understand that there is a world outside the US. |
Once again, you're mischaracterizing, creating a strawman whether or not that's the intent. Not MVC. HL IB Analysis was the specific. It would be a great fit for many more, if made available across all the IB programs and if MCPS did a better job of identifying and robustly supporting ability earlier -- one doesn't need a super-accelerated track for that, but the lack of early exposure tends to tamp down associated expectation/subject interest. The same could apply to many more advanced classes for which MCPS effectively enables differential access. As for that one student, maybe MCPS should be opening up more criteria-based seats so that those with ability, but not fortunate enough to come from a catchment with a large enough peer group to ensure related locally-provided classes, get their needs equitably met. |
No, I wasn't conflating those two posts at all. The second one, I don't agree, but the writing is concise and the opinion is quite clear. The first one, (presumably written by you), Not all MCPS IB programs are equal. MCPS should do a better job of providing enough seats with reasonable equivalence to meet all students where they are instead of under-seating and enabling better options for some than others.[/i You've never proven the programs are unequal. You didn't even know the regional ones had applications until we told you. You based the idea that regional programs are inferior on some fuzzy hand waving about the math classes that are offered. Never mind that several people chimed in from regionals and said those math classes are offered. You throw in the point that there aren't enough seats. One assumes you mean at RMIB. My own inference here is your child did not get into RMIB and you did not want to send them to a regional program. Given that framework, I understand your opinion... and you. [i]Lots of students, regardless of location, can benefit from advanced programming, and good IB programs would be a part of that. Equity (broadly defined) is important. (Not that narrowly defined equity isn't important.) Families should be aware as they make choices." You throw in some platitudes here about equity, although it's not at all clear what kind of equity you're talking about. I assume broad equity is socioeconomic and cultural? And narrow equity is... just for IB classes and mostly math? You want Montgomery County to offer every student at every school the same classes? That would be terrific, although sadly too late for my kid who got waitlisted for VAC and had to take IB Art because their school had no VAC. How will we be paying for that? And will they offer classes in alchemical sorcery too? We share an opinion that challenging more students is good. |
Imo, you're running rings around this dude. |
Except that you are, once again, conflating. I was not the poster who didn't know about regional IBs.
No, I base it on my conversations with MCPS admins, school principals, parents at PTA meetings and IB program coordinators over the past two to three years. There's a ton of hedging on the MCPS side, but it comes down to, "No, it doesn't get offered if we don't think there is enough 'community pull' for it." It may be offered some places at some times, but not consistently enough not to leave interested students without a large enough cohort (generally, outside the countywide RMIB magnet and, apparently, B-CC) out in the cold. And the response, there, is typically a platitudinous, "Don't worry, your child will be fine." :roll: Others have chimed in with their own anecdotes, and I don't doubt their personal experiences, but nobody directly answered whether all the courses offered at RMIB are equivalently avaialble to any IB student at the other IB schools. I'm guessing this may be because they can't -- MCPS does a terrible job of allowing detailed comparison -- and relying on my conversations to maintain that it isn't so until relly shown otherwise.
RMIB, but most criteria-based programs, too. Your inference is not correct -- don't set up another strawman -- and if you understand me, othwrwise, you appear not to address the issue as though you do.
In this case, broad is, within a school system, meeting students where they are/where they can be without differences based on a large number of demographic factors, specifically including zip code within that system. Narrow is picking one or a very few of those demographic factors on which to base an evaluation of just provision of services.
Unless it's specifically constrained to limited-duration pilots, which are often necessary to evaluate programs before roll-out, MCPS should be allocating resources best to ensure that students at each school (or within each catchment, if magnets can properly and equitably serve well-identified populations) have similar educational experience opportunities. The exact same class may be too difficult in some cases and not desired in others, but when we talk about something like IB, then, yes, access to HL shouldn't be something families and students even have to question, no matter where they are. MCPS magnets haven't grown in proportion to the student population. Opening regionals and aiming to serve the population with local programs is a fine strategy, but only if it provides that broad equity. We shouldn't be allocating resources that reinforce differences that reflect opportunity. <aside: Alchemical Sorcery doesn't hold a candle to Silmaril Studies.>
Glad for that. Hope there's more we share. |
Test driving a car and attending a school are vastly different in terms of opportunity cost. You can’t do two programs at the same time for a direct comparison and the sample size is usually very small. Of course you’ll talk to people that went through the program, visit the school, talk to the teachers, and do the same for the alternatives under consideration. You also need to do your own research, like a course catalogue, syllabus, typical course sequence, college admission outcomes to ultimately evaluate if it’s a good fit for your student. Not sure why when someone points a potential negative aspect of the IB, people react so negatively and take it so personally, it’s almost cult like. I have no problem if someone criticizes the AP or DE route my child followed, as with everything, each have their strengths and weaknesses. |