Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Same. Since MCPS is barreling ahead with this ill thought out program I think this is the most pertinent point to drive home to them + the board: academic magnets should be placed at the regional schools with the highest FARMS rates to help ensure sufficient number of academically advanced students to support full range of advanced classes. |
Anonymous
How about they do a better job educating kids earlier on so that schools with high FARMS rates already have sufficient academically prepared students within the community population? |
Anonymous
Sure that too but doesn’t negate the above point. I encourage all parents to advocate for academic magnets being placed at the highest FARMS schools. In addition to the benefit cited by PP it will cause wealthier neighborhoods to have some skin in the game as to the overall success of those schools which is also important. |
Anonymous
There are academically advanced students at every single high school. The high FARMS high schools receive no extra resources to address the issues associated with poverty, so yeah they essentially have fewer resources than wealthy schools. |
Anonymous
|
Same. Since MCPS is barreling ahead with this ill thought out program I think this is the most pertinent point to drive home to them + the board: academic magnets should be placed at the regional schools with the highest FARMS rates to help ensure sufficient number of academically advanced students to support full range of advanced classes.
How about they do a better job educating kids earlier on so that schools with high FARMS rates already have sufficient academically prepared students within the community population? Sure that too but doesn’t negate the above point. I encourage all parents to advocate for academic magnets being placed at the highest FARMS schools. In addition to the benefit cited by PP it will cause wealthier neighborhoods to have some skin in the game as to the overall success of those schools which is also important. The idea of placing academic magnets at schools with the highest FARMS may sound noble but in practice will not work. Parents will simply not send their kids to schools with bad academic reputation. These magnets will become obsolete with only kids from host schools. That will not benefit anyone as students in the host schools will have the same peers and teachers they have now. New magnets will never come even remotely close in success to current magnets so the plan will have an overall negative effect as academically gifted students in the county will lose any access to good magnets. Strategically best approach is to place most important magnets in schools with average FARMS numbers, e.g. Blair, RM, etc. This will give new magnets a chance to succeed, while not benefiting schools with low FARMS and already good academic offerings. As for the schools with high FARMS, the only way to help them is to give them resources and mandate they use those resources to hire teachers and offer advanced classes. Giving them magnets just ruins the magnet concept. |
Anonymous
High FARMS schools do get additional resources. Whether that’s enough to make up for the additional needs is a separate question. |
Anonymous
False, high FARMS high schools do not receive extra funding based on their FARMS rates. For example, Churchill had the same per pupil funding as Wheaton in 2020 and 2022. https://moderatelymoco.com/mcps-per-pupil-expenditure-by-each-high-school-2020-2022/ Differences in per pupil funding are due to special education and ESL services , which only serve students in those programs and do not address challenges associated with poverty. |
Anonymous
Don’t Title I schools get extra resources? https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/dtecps/title1/how-to-identify-title-i-schools/#:~:text=To%20identify%20Title%20I%20schools,loses%20its%20Title%20I%20status? |
Anonymous
These magnets are fake. |
Anonymous
Its unfair to have teacher allocations for many foriegn languages when other schools don't have the basic classes. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Increasing FARMS at Whitman by 3% is funny though....it's like they had to try something...[/quote]
Ridiculous to change two elementary school communities and move students out of walk zones for this very minimal increase that has no impact on the original focus of the boundary study. Option F does not make sense.[/quote] Option F won't happen.[/quote] They could easily do option F but switch the BCC and Whitman elementary schools back to where they are now, but still keep the east county benefits of option F. As someone from Silver Spring I'm fine with that if it's what the school communities involved want.[/quote] Agree. Would encourage west county folks to vote for F and if this is their sticking point to mention it. F is clearly the best option for east county with minimal negative impact on west county (IMO).[/quote] I’m sorry but MCPS has been so horrible about taking feedback that I would personally never vote for F with a footnote hoping they make that minor, common sense adjustment. After the fiasco of what’s been going on with the regional plan, I just don’t trust them. My gut is if the majority vote for F, they will go forward with F as it is presented. I am not from Wood Acres or Bethesda Elementary, so not directly affected. But I’ve been around long enough to predict their actions and it is ridiculous that they would bus kids in a walk zone for no significant reason especially since all 6 other options do not, and are perfectly viable. [/quote] All other 6 options are viable for you, but they leave the highest FARMS schools overcrowded.[/quote] The capacity for each high school for models a to g is: BCC (89, 89, 89, 89, 90, 89, 89) Blair (85, 78, 85, 85, 85, 85, 90) Einstein (93, 93, 85, 93, 83, 82, 79) WJ (72, 78, 70, 83, 71, 78, 71) Kennedy (90, 90, 90, 83, 90, 90, 90) Northwood (81, 91, 86, 81, 88, 89, 86) Wheaton* (95, 95, 95, 95, 86, 95, 81, 95) Whitman (83, 83, 83, 83, 83, 84, 83) Woodward (80, 74, 81, 86, 81, 91, 81) * added 500 seats to capacity[/quote] Wheaton has 8 in your chart but everyone else has 7 . Is there an option G for Wheaton? No[/quote] just a typo The capacity for each high school for models a to g is: BCC (89, 89, 89, 89, 90, 89, 89) Blair (85, 78, 85, 85, 85, 85, 90) Einstein (93, 93, 85, 93, 83, 82, 79) WJ (72, 78, 70, 83, 71, 78, 71) Kennedy (90, 90, 90, 83, 90, 90, 90) Northwood (81, 91, 86, 81, 88, 89, 86) Wheaton* (95, 95, 95, 86, 95, 81, 95) Whitman (83, 83, 83, 83, 83, 84, 83) Woodward (80, 74, 81, 86, 81, 91, 81) * added 500 seats to capacity [/quote] Reminder that these numbers only include resident students, so any students from other clusters will add to the totals.[/quote] ? what are you calling 'clusters'? [/quote] For example, anyone from the Blair, Einstein, Northwood, or Whitman clusters but attending BCC is not included in these numbers.[/quote] ok you mean regions. the numbers are supposed to balance those, such that those going equal those staying. In practice no one actually leave Whitman, but Whitman probably has enough capacity. [/quote] They expect families from less wealthy areas to deal with their shtty proposed transportation. System to balance enrollment. Gross[/quote] oh come on. If they said no one could go to Whitman, you'd think that was gross too.[/quote] I'm fine with Whitman having the less common languages there and letting people go there if they really want to take a less popular language. It's a good fit because they already offer more languages so will have no problem continuing to offer them no matter who comes or doesn't. Not fine with them having a top-tier academic magnet like Humanities designed to draw a large share of the top academic achievers out of other schools in the region.[/quote] Same. Since MCPS is barreling ahead with this ill thought out program I think this is the most pertinent point to drive home to them + the board: academic magnets should be placed at the regional schools with the highest FARMS rates to help ensure sufficient number of academically advanced students to support full range of advanced classes.[/quote] How about they do a better job educating kids earlier on so that schools with high FARMS rates already have sufficient academically prepared students within the community population?[/quote] I mean, yes, they should do that too. But let's be real-- between having a lot more kids with college- educated parents, and a lot more kids whose parents supplement and pay for tutors and enrichment and whatever else it takes to get their kids through high-level courses, there's always going to be a lot more demand for those classes at richer schools, and a lot less at middling and poorer schools, especially smaller ones. For example, if Einstein now has only 350 or so kids per grade, and maybe 15% of them are interested in and prepared for high-level classes, that's only 50 kids. And if just 3% of Einstein kids leave for each of the SMCS, IB, and Humanities magnets, that''s 30 of those 50 kids gone and suddenly you've only got 20, which makes offering high-level courses really hairy. Whereas if you put, say, a large IB or Humanities magnet into Einstein, you bring in maybe 60 or 90 kids a grade interested in advanced classes to supplement the 20-30 local Einstein kids, and suddenly you can offer way more classes and Einstein kids are way better off. (Meanwhile, a school like Whitman's got like 80-100 or more kids a year taking AP Bio, Chem, Physics, Calc BC, and a ton of other APs. They would be totally fine if they lost 30-40 kids per year to academic magnets at other schools (not that Whitman kids like to leave but you know what I mean), and unlike the benefits it would bring to less wealthy schools, having an additional 60ish advanced kids per grade come to Whitman for a Humanities magnet will likely have little positive impact on Whitman, it'll just cause harm to places like Einstein and Northwood and let some of the better off kids at those schools escape the damage by fleeing to Whitman. Hooray for equity!) |
Anonymous
Yes for elementary schools and a very few middle schools. Not high schools. |
Anonymous
+1 you can find the list of Title 1 schools here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/cip27_chapter3.pdf It also lists focus schools which also get some extra resources but none of them are high schools either |
Anonymous
I mean, yes, they should do that too. But let's be real-- between having a lot more kids with college- educated parents, and a lot more kids whose parents supplement and pay for tutors and enrichment and whatever else it takes to get their kids through high-level courses, there's always going to be a lot more demand for those classes at richer schools, and a lot less at middling and poorer schools, especially smaller ones. For example, if Einstein will now have only 350 or so kids per grade, and maybe 15% of them are interested in and prepared for high-level classes, that's only 50 kids. And if just 3% of Einstein kids leave for each of the SMCS, IB, and Humanities magnets, that''s 30 of those 50 kids gone and suddenly you've only got 20, which makes offering high-level courses really hairy. Northwood is a little better off just due to being bigger, but still, with the same math (15% of 500 kids which is 75, lose 3% to each of 3 academic magnets) you're down to 40 but then some of those kids might take college courses instead and now you've got the same problem. It'll be enough to give these schools the reputation of "places you don''t go if you want to take high-level courses because they don't offer enough of them." Whereas if you put, say, a large IB or Humanities magnet into Einstein or Northwood, you bring in maybe 60 or 90 kids a grade interested in advanced classes to supplement the 20-40 local kids, and suddenly you can offer way more classes and local kids are way better off and they absolutely remain desirable schools which local students want to stay at. (Meanwhile, a school like Whitman's got like 80-100 or more kids a year taking AP Bio, Chem, Physics, Calc BC, and a ton of other APs. They would be totally fine if they lost 30-40 kids per year to academic magnets at other schools (not that Whitman kids like to leave but you know what I mean), and unlike the benefits it would bring to less wealthy schools, having an additional 60ish advanced kids per grade come to Whitman for a Humanities magnet will likely have little positive impact on Whitman, it'll just cause harm to places like Einstein and Northwood and let some of the better off kids at those schools escape the damage by fleeing to Whitman. Hooray for equity!) |
Anonymous
How about they do a better job educating kids earlier on so that schools with high FARMS rates already have sufficient academically prepared students within the community population? Sure that too but doesn’t negate the above point. I encourage all parents to advocate for academic magnets being placed at the highest FARMS schools. In addition to the benefit cited by PP it will cause wealthier neighborhoods to have some skin in the game as to the overall success of those schools which is also important. The idea of placing academic magnets at schools with the highest FARMS may sound noble but in practice will not work. Parents will simply not send their kids to schools with bad academic reputation. These magnets will become obsolete with only kids from host schools. That will not benefit anyone as students in the host schools will have the same peers and teachers they have now. New magnets will never come even remotely close in success to current magnets so the plan will have an overall negative effect as academically gifted students in the county will lose any access to good magnets. Strategically best approach is to place most important magnets in schools with average FARMS numbers, e.g. Blair, RM, etc. This will give new magnets a chance to succeed, while not benefiting schools with low FARMS and already good academic offerings. As for the schools with high FARMS, the only way to help them is to give them resources and mandate they use those resources to hire teachers and offer advanced classes. Giving them magnets just ruins the magnet concept. I agree with you that there’s probably a sweet spot for magnet placement, but Northwood and Einstein have similar or lower FARMS % to Blair in their resident student populations. It’s only after the DCC and magnet shuffling that Blair becomes significantly lower. |