County-wide magnet/IB/GE/Humanity programs will become regional programs if the secondary program plan is passed

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-of bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

You don't need to look at the current make up, you need to look at the waitlisted kids. Plenty of DCC smart kids to take the slots. W schools have upper level classes and families moved there for a reason. They should not take up DCC slots.

I get it now. DCC wants more Blair seats so they are trying to exclude W students.

No it is just the same Einstein parent over and over I think. Let’s not take the bait. This person is locked into a position.

Not at Einstein. But, why should students with more opportunities take slots away from students who don't have the same opportunities? If you want Blair, move.

I don’t want Blair! Good grief my kid would hate it.

I do think that magnet opportunities should be equitably offered and that students who would benefit should not be excluded because of their zip code.

The presentation last night said the goal is for all schools to have the same core set of advanced courses and for all students to have access to similar magnet offerings. How is that not a good thing?!?!?
Why would hoarding opportunity for something that people claim is so special (Blair STEM) to one geographic region be a good policy?
It isn’t accurate to say DCC doesn’t have advanced courses. Einstein doesn’t have MV. That isn’t solved by limiting Blair STEM to DCC

Instead of focusing on magnet, start by meeting all kids' needs at their home schools, then add specialty programs. If Blair is limited to DCC students, DCC students who need MV can go to Blair or Wheaton, which are the only two schools that offer it. Your kids have tons of opportunities that our kids don't have. First equalize things.

I agree. Maybe in addition to program analysis there needs to be a core offering analysis to ensure equity of offerings at all schools. This seems more important to me than programs. Strengthen all home schools is essential and should happen first. There needs to be better information about what is actually offered at each school rather than vague statements like school A has more than school B. If that is true, it is a problem to solve so a thorough analysis of the problem should happen followed by a cause analysis and a solution proposal.

The program analysis team claims it is doing this. But then you see slides emphasizing the importance of honors courses in all schools without the acknowledgement that honors for all
Means honors for none.

There's a huge difference between honors for all (all students go to the same course, which is termed "honors") and ensuring honors classes are offered at all schools (not all students go to the same course, but any qualified student gets the honors opportunity).

In the first, due to difficulties with employing differentiation in large classes with limited resources/training, schools with small honors-level student cohorts typically provide less of the honors experience (needing to dedicate most of the time to the bulk of the class) than at schools with larger honors-level student cohorts (where the bulk of the time can be spent on them, or better if the classes, themselves, get cohorted by ability despite having the same title).

PP you responded to and I agree. But when MCOS says that all schools should have honors courses, they mean what we have now—they are not saying true honors or some other modifier to indicate it is different from what they have now

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

The school district should release data on the number of students applying to Blair magnet who have the likely capacity to succeed in the program, as well as zip code information on where they live. They should do this for RMIB, Einstein's VAC, and Wheaton's Academy of Engineering as well.

My student wasn't in TMPS' magnet nor Blair's magnet, but he benefitted from attending schools with these programs. He completed geometry in 8th grade and took higher level math at Blair because of the magnet' presence at the schools.

If I get sick with cancer, my child won't treat me, but it could be that I will live longer because a Blair magnet alumni helped develop effective treatments or even a cure. That is the type of thing that happens when you have students with high ability provided access to very rigorous curriculum in a specialized program. It's unlikely that a truly rigorous magnet will have a sufficient cohort in any one region; none will be the type of flagship program that Blair is.

How dramatic. Or they could attend excellent colleges and grad schools that train them to do that sort of life-saving work.

Why are you against having an outstanding program for highly able students?

Absolutely no one is against this. Some people do not think that the needs of 20 kids per year exceed the needs of the many who would benefit from regional programming.

+1 Not to mention that the number of kids who "need" Linear Algebra to graduate, AND who are not in one of the STEM magnets already in existence or coming into existence, is going to be very small. Why not just guarantee every kid on that path a spot at "regular" Wheaton if they don't make the cut for one of the STEM magnets. All five of those kids will be served, and the problem will be resolved. Much better than rolling out Linear and MV for one kid per school across the county.

Lots of kids. Lots:

6th PreAlgebra (a significant percentage are placed here; a very few are placed higher)

7th Integrated Algebra 1 (look it up -- this is coming for all students in MD beginning in 27-28)

8th Integrated Algebra 2 (ditto -- note these two take the year-placement-progression of three prior courses: Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2)

9th PreCalculus (for those continuing on the more academic of the 4 prescribed MD pathways, which will be the significant majority of those taking PreAlgebra in 6th)

10th Calc (AP Calc BC for most of those)

11th Multivariable Calculus (see explanatory post beginning with "Yep" on page 11 of the BOE meeting thread as to why this continuity is important)

12th would be nice to have Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, but this is the point where a break from the progression to take AP Stats might make sense (and be both easier to staff and allow combination with cohorts accessing AP Stats on a non-Calc BC pathway)

And some of those starting Integrated Algebra in 8th (together with the above likely making a majority of MCPS students) who find a mathematics stride a bit later than their peers may well also desire the path of Calc BC followed by MVC (only in 11th and 12th, respectively, instead of 10th & 11th). There will be some who opt for a slower 2-year progression of Calc AB and Calc BC, of course, or one of the Calcs and then AP Stats, as above, but these shouldn't be the only in-school option, and really can't be, given the needs of those above. This is all outside of any math-oriented magnet, which may have even more rigorous courses/pathways.

Bottom line -- with the state shift to the 2-year Integrated Algebra, MVC should be part of the set of classes offered in person at all MCPS high schools.

What would be wrong with starting pre-algebra in grade 7?

That 2-year integrated Algebra is going to be interested as most curriculum is setup for 3-year integrated algebra. And most people think kids need more time for Algebra/Geometry/Trig integration and application, not less.

Mscps has done math poorly for years. This sounds terrible condensing it.

It's an MSDE (state) thing, though MCPS has to make it happen. A lot of Trig and some other stuff will be trimmed. The idea is that those concepts aren't truly necessary to 3 of the 4 post-Integrated Algebra pathways they defined, and that school systems can work that content back in for the Calc pathway (that may be difficult, of course).

I hope MCPS creates integrated math 3 that adds the missing standards for students who want to go onto calc.

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-of bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

You don't need to look at the current make up, you need to look at the waitlisted kids. Plenty of DCC smart kids to take the slots. W schools have upper level classes and families moved there for a reason. They should not take up DCC slots.

I get it now. DCC wants more Blair seats so they are trying to exclude W students.

No it is just the same Einstein parent over and over I think. Let’s not take the bait. This person is locked into a position.

Not at Einstein. But, why should students with more opportunities take slots away from students who don't have the same opportunities? If you want Blair, move.

I don’t want Blair! Good grief my kid would hate it.

I do think that magnet opportunities should be equitably offered and that students who would benefit should not be excluded because of their zip code.

The presentation last night said the goal is for all schools to have the same core set of advanced courses and for all students to have access to similar magnet offerings. How is that not a good thing?!?!?
Why would hoarding opportunity for something that people claim is so special (Blair STEM) to one geographic region be a good policy?
It isn’t accurate to say DCC doesn’t have advanced courses. Einstein doesn’t have MV. That isn’t solved by limiting Blair STEM to DCC

Instead of focusing on magnet, start by meeting all kids' needs at their home schools, then add specialty programs. If Blair is limited to DCC students, DCC students who need MV can go to Blair or Wheaton, which are the only two schools that offer it. Your kids have tons of opportunities that our kids don't have. First equalize things.

I agree. Maybe in addition to program analysis there needs to be a core offering analysis to ensure equity of offerings at all schools. This seems more important to me than programs. Strengthen all home schools is essential and should happen first. There needs to be better information about what is actually offered at each school rather than vague statements like school A has more than school B. If that is true, it is a problem to solve so a thorough analysis of the problem should happen followed by a cause analysis and a solution proposal.

The program analysis team claims it is doing this. But then you see slides emphasizing the importance of honors courses in all schools without the acknowledgement that honors for all
Means honors for none.

There's a huge difference between honors for all (all students go to the same course, which is termed "honors") and ensuring honors classes are offered at all schools (not all students go to the same course, but any qualified student gets the honors opportunity).

In the first, due to difficulties with employing differentiation in large classes with limited resources/training, schools with small honors-level student cohorts typically provide less of the honors experience (needing to dedicate most of the time to the bulk of the class) than at schools with larger honors-level student cohorts (where the bulk of the time can be spent on them, or better if the classes, themselves, get cohorted by ability despite having the same title).

PP you responded to and I agree. But when MCOS says that all schools should have honors courses, they mean what we have now—they are not saying true honors or some other modifier to indicate it is different from what they have now

They talked about it in the context of preparing kids for AP and IB courses. Not sure what exactly that means for how they would implement it but that was the framing.

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

The school district should release data on the number of students applying to Blair magnet who have the likely capacity to succeed in the program, as well as zip code information on where they live. They should do this for RMIB, Einstein's VAC, and Wheaton's Academy of Engineering as well.

My student wasn't in TMPS' magnet nor Blair's magnet, but he benefitted from attending schools with these programs. He completed geometry in 8th grade and took higher level math at Blair because of the magnet' presence at the schools.

If I get sick with cancer, my child won't treat me, but it could be that I will live longer because a Blair magnet alumni helped develop effective treatments or even a cure. That is the type of thing that happens when you have students with high ability provided access to very rigorous curriculum in a specialized program. It's unlikely that a truly rigorous magnet will have a sufficient cohort in any one region; none will be the type of flagship program that Blair is.

How dramatic. Or they could attend excellent colleges and grad schools that train them to do that sort of life-saving work.

Why are you against having an outstanding program for highly able students?

Absolutely no one is against this. Some people do not think that the needs of 20 kids per year exceed the needs of the many who would benefit from regional programming.

+1 Not to mention that the number of kids who "need" Linear Algebra to graduate, AND who are not in one of the STEM magnets already in existence or coming into existence, is going to be very small. Why not just guarantee every kid on that path a spot at "regular" Wheaton if they don't make the cut for one of the STEM magnets. All five of those kids will be served, and the problem will be resolved. Much better than rolling out Linear and MV for one kid per school across the county.

Lots of kids. Lots:

6th PreAlgebra (a significant percentage are placed here; a very few are placed higher)

7th Integrated Algebra 1 (look it up -- this is coming for all students in MD beginning in 27-28)

8th Integrated Algebra 2 (ditto -- note these two take the year-placement-progression of three prior courses: Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2)

9th PreCalculus (for those continuing on the more academic of the 4 prescribed MD pathways, which will be the significant majority of those taking PreAlgebra in 6th)

10th Calc (AP Calc BC for most of those)

11th Multivariable Calculus (see explanatory post beginning with "Yep" on page 11 of the BOE meeting thread as to why this continuity is important)

12th would be nice to have Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, but this is the point where a break from the progression to take AP Stats might make sense (and be both easier to staff and allow combination with cohorts accessing AP Stats on a non-Calc BC pathway)

And some of those starting Integrated Algebra in 8th (together with the above likely making a majority of MCPS students) who find a mathematics stride a bit later than their peers may well also desire the path of Calc BC followed by MVC (only in 11th and 12th, respectively, instead of 10th & 11th). There will be some who opt for a slower 2-year progression of Calc AB and Calc BC, of course, or one of the Calcs and then AP Stats, as above, but these shouldn't be the only in-school option, and really can't be, given the needs of those above. This is all outside of any math-oriented magnet, which may have even more rigorous courses/pathways.

Bottom line -- with the state shift to the 2-year Integrated Algebra, MVC should be part of the set of classes offered in person at all MCPS high schools.

What would be wrong with starting pre-algebra in grade 7?

That 2-year integrated Algebra is going to be interested as most curriculum is setup for 3-year integrated algebra. And most people think kids need more time for Algebra/Geometry/Trig integration and application, not less.

Mscps has done math poorly for years. This sounds terrible condensing it.

It's an MSDE (state) thing, though MCPS has to make it happen. A lot of Trig and some other stuff will be trimmed. The idea is that those concepts aren't truly necessary to 3 of the 4 post-Integrated Algebra pathways they defined, and that school systems can work that content back in for the Calc pathway (that may be difficult, of course).

It can be trimmed for non stem majors and unnecessary but there is no room to fit it in ap calc. Bad idea.

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

The school district should release data on the number of students applying to Blair magnet who have the likely capacity to succeed in the program, as well as zip code information on where they live. They should do this for RMIB, Einstein's VAC, and Wheaton's Academy of Engineering as well.

My student wasn't in TMPS' magnet nor Blair's magnet, but he benefitted from attending schools with these programs. He completed geometry in 8th grade and took higher level math at Blair because of the magnet' presence at the schools.

If I get sick with cancer, my child won't treat me, but it could be that I will live longer because a Blair magnet alumni helped develop effective treatments or even a cure. That is the type of thing that happens when you have students with high ability provided access to very rigorous curriculum in a specialized program. It's unlikely that a truly rigorous magnet will have a sufficient cohort in any one region; none will be the type of flagship program that Blair is.

How dramatic. Or they could attend excellent colleges and grad schools that train them to do that sort of life-saving work.

Why are you against having an outstanding program for highly able students?

Absolutely no one is against this. Some people do not think that the needs of 20 kids per year exceed the needs of the many who would benefit from regional programming.

+1 Not to mention that the number of kids who "need" Linear Algebra to graduate, AND who are not in one of the STEM magnets already in existence or coming into existence, is going to be very small. Why not just guarantee every kid on that path a spot at "regular" Wheaton if they don't make the cut for one of the STEM magnets. All five of those kids will be served, and the problem will be resolved. Much better than rolling out Linear and MV for one kid per school across the county.

Lots of kids. Lots:

6th PreAlgebra (a significant percentage are placed here; a very few are placed higher)

7th Integrated Algebra 1 (look it up -- this is coming for all students in MD beginning in 27-28)

8th Integrated Algebra 2 (ditto -- note these two take the year-placement-progression of three prior courses: Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2)

9th PreCalculus (for those continuing on the more academic of the 4 prescribed MD pathways, which will be the significant majority of those taking PreAlgebra in 6th)

10th Calc (AP Calc BC for most of those)

11th Multivariable Calculus (see explanatory post beginning with "Yep" on page 11 of the BOE meeting thread as to why this continuity is important)

12th would be nice to have Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, but this is the point where a break from the progression to take AP Stats might make sense (and be both easier to staff and allow combination with cohorts accessing AP Stats on a non-Calc BC pathway)

And some of those starting Integrated Algebra in 8th (together with the above likely making a majority of MCPS students) who find a mathematics stride a bit later than their peers may well also desire the path of Calc BC followed by MVC (only in 11th and 12th, respectively, instead of 10th & 11th). There will be some who opt for a slower 2-year progression of Calc AB and Calc BC, of course, or one of the Calcs and then AP Stats, as above, but these shouldn't be the only in-school option, and really can't be, given the needs of those above. This is all outside of any math-oriented magnet, which may have even more rigorous courses/pathways.

Bottom line -- with the state shift to the 2-year Integrated Algebra, MVC should be part of the set of classes offered in person at all MCPS high schools.

What would be wrong with starting pre-algebra in grade 7?

That 2-year integrated Algebra is going to be interested as most curriculum is setup for 3-year integrated algebra. And most people think kids need more time for Algebra/Geometry/Trig integration and application, not less.

Mscps has done math poorly for years. This sounds terrible condensing it.

Its a state driving plan not an MCPS plan.

MCPS needs to fight it. It’s watering down important math.

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-of bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

You don't need to look at the current make up, you need to look at the waitlisted kids. Plenty of DCC smart kids to take the slots. W schools have upper level classes and families moved there for a reason. They should not take up DCC slots.

I get it now. DCC wants more Blair seats so they are trying to exclude W students.

No it is just the same Einstein parent over and over I think. Let’s not take the bait. This person is locked into a position.

Not at Einstein. But, why should students with more opportunities take slots away from students who don't have the same opportunities? If you want Blair, move.

I don’t want Blair! Good grief my kid would hate it.

I do think that magnet opportunities should be equitably offered and that students who would benefit should not be excluded because of their zip code.

The presentation last night said the goal is for all schools to have the same core set of advanced courses and for all students to have access to similar magnet offerings. How is that not a good thing?!?!?
Why would hoarding opportunity for something that people claim is so special (Blair STEM) to one geographic region be a good policy?
It isn’t accurate to say DCC doesn’t have advanced courses. Einstein doesn’t have MV. That isn’t solved by limiting Blair STEM to DCC

Instead of focusing on magnet, start by meeting all kids' needs at their home schools, then add specialty programs. If Blair is limited to DCC students, DCC students who need MV can go to Blair or Wheaton, which are the only two schools that offer it. Your kids have tons of opportunities that our kids don't have. First equalize things.

I agree. Maybe in addition to program analysis there needs to be a core offering analysis to ensure equity of offerings at all schools. This seems more important to me than programs. Strengthen all home schools is essential and should happen first. There needs to be better information about what is actually offered at each school rather than vague statements like school A has more than school B. If that is true, it is a problem to solve so a thorough analysis of the problem should happen followed by a cause analysis and a solution proposal.

The program analysis team claims it is doing this. But then you see slides emphasizing the importance of honors courses in all schools without the acknowledgement that honors for all
Means honors for none.

There's a huge difference between honors for all (all students go to the same course, which is termed "honors") and ensuring honors classes are offered at all schools (not all students go to the same course, but any qualified student gets the honors opportunity).

In the first, due to difficulties with employing differentiation in large classes with limited resources/training, schools with small honors-level student cohorts typically provide less of the honors experience (needing to dedicate most of the time to the bulk of the class) than at schools with larger honors-level student cohorts (where the bulk of the time can be spent on them, or better if the classes, themselves, get cohorted by ability despite having the same title).

PP you responded to and I agree. But when MCOS says that all schools should have honors courses, they mean what we have now—they are not saying true honors or some other modifier to indicate it is different from what they have now

They talked about it in the context of preparing kids for AP and IB courses. Not sure what exactly that means for how they would implement it but that was the framing.

They said during the grading change meeting that they were also doing an audit of honors courses, separate from the program analysis.

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

The school district should release data on the number of students applying to Blair magnet who have the likely capacity to succeed in the program, as well as zip code information on where they live. They should do this for RMIB, Einstein's VAC, and Wheaton's Academy of Engineering as well.

My student wasn't in TMPS' magnet nor Blair's magnet, but he benefitted from attending schools with these programs. He completed geometry in 8th grade and took higher level math at Blair because of the magnet' presence at the schools.

If I get sick with cancer, my child won't treat me, but it could be that I will live longer because a Blair magnet alumni helped develop effective treatments or even a cure. That is the type of thing that happens when you have students with high ability provided access to very rigorous curriculum in a specialized program. It's unlikely that a truly rigorous magnet will have a sufficient cohort in any one region; none will be the type of flagship program that Blair is.

How dramatic. Or they could attend excellent colleges and grad schools that train them to do that sort of life-saving work.

Why are you against having an outstanding program for highly able students?

Absolutely no one is against this. Some people do not think that the needs of 20 kids per year exceed the needs of the many who would benefit from regional programming.

+1 Not to mention that the number of kids who "need" Linear Algebra to graduate, AND who are not in one of the STEM magnets already in existence or coming into existence, is going to be very small. Why not just guarantee every kid on that path a spot at "regular" Wheaton if they don't make the cut for one of the STEM magnets. All five of those kids will be served, and the problem will be resolved. Much better than rolling out Linear and MV for one kid per school across the county.

Lots of kids. Lots:

6th PreAlgebra (a significant percentage are placed here; a very few are placed higher)

7th Integrated Algebra 1 (look it up -- this is coming for all students in MD beginning in 27-28)

8th Integrated Algebra 2 (ditto -- note these two take the year-placement-progression of three prior courses: Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2)

9th PreCalculus (for those continuing on the more academic of the 4 prescribed MD pathways, which will be the significant majority of those taking PreAlgebra in 6th)

10th Calc (AP Calc BC for most of those)

11th Multivariable Calculus (see explanatory post beginning with "Yep" on page 11 of the BOE meeting thread as to why this continuity is important)

12th would be nice to have Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, but this is the point where a break from the progression to take AP Stats might make sense (and be both easier to staff and allow combination with cohorts accessing AP Stats on a non-Calc BC pathway)

And some of those starting Integrated Algebra in 8th (together with the above likely making a majority of MCPS students) who find a mathematics stride a bit later than their peers may well also desire the path of Calc BC followed by MVC (only in 11th and 12th, respectively, instead of 10th & 11th). There will be some who opt for a slower 2-year progression of Calc AB and Calc BC, of course, or one of the Calcs and then AP Stats, as above, but these shouldn't be the only in-school option, and really can't be, given the needs of those above. This is all outside of any math-oriented magnet, which may have even more rigorous courses/pathways.

Bottom line -- with the state shift to the 2-year Integrated Algebra, MVC should be part of the set of classes offered in person at all MCPS high schools.

What would be wrong with starting pre-algebra in grade 7?

That 2-year integrated Algebra is going to be interested as most curriculum is setup for 3-year integrated algebra. And most people think kids need more time for Algebra/Geometry/Trig integration and application, not less.

Mscps has done math poorly for years. This sounds terrible condensing it.

It's an MSDE (state) thing, though MCPS has to make it happen. A lot of Trig and some other stuff will be trimmed. The idea is that those concepts aren't truly necessary to 3 of the 4 post-Integrated Algebra pathways they defined, and that school systems can work that content back in for the Calc pathway (that may be difficult, of course).

It can be trimmed for non stem majors and unnecessary but there is no room to fit it in ap calc. Bad idea.

The idea that has been floated is to work it in to PreCalc, not Calc.

Another idea might be to offer an MCPS-specific flavor of Honors Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 that continues the more accelerated pace that those students tend to enjoy, allowing the trimmed content back in for those aiming at the Calc path (or who just like the pace/challenge). Not sure if that would run afoul of the MSDE requirement. Implementation is left to local education agencies ("LEAs," not to be confused with other, better known LEAs in this land of acronyms; this one is a set-up for certain snyde comedy), but I'm sure there is some prescribed structure. Disclaimer: this idea is pure conjecture, not sourced from MSDE or MCPS material or conversations with them.

[Anonymous]

Can folks take the conversation regarding changes to math pathways to one of the several separate threads on that specific topic? It's only tangentially relevant here, presumably once the changes are in place all high schools will end up with another option to get the "regular" accelerated math kids through to graduation, even though (as now) they won't all have options for the kids who are super-accelerated and taking Algebra 1 (or the new equivalent) in 6th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can folks take the conversation regarding changes to math pathways to one of the several separate threads on that specific topic? It's only tangentially relevant here, presumably once the changes are in place all high schools will end up with another option to get the "regular" accelerated math kids through to graduation, even though (as now) they won't all have options for the kids who are super-accelerated and taking Algebra 1 (or the new equivalent) in 6th.

We might if you didn't end with the Algebra in 6th strawman. The plan MCPS presented leaves the MVC gap for those on the much more "standard" accelerated path (beginning HS Algebra courses in 7th). The relation to the topic of this thread was with respect to the relative need for magnet seating if such courses are not available to fill the gap for all who reasonably could and would pursue them.

Now we can leave it at that. Can you?

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

The school district should release data on the number of students applying to Blair magnet who have the likely capacity to succeed in the program, as well as zip code information on where they live. They should do this for RMIB, Einstein's VAC, and Wheaton's Academy of Engineering as well.

My student wasn't in TMPS' magnet nor Blair's magnet, but he benefitted from attending schools with these programs. He completed geometry in 8th grade and took higher level math at Blair because of the magnet' presence at the schools.

If I get sick with cancer, my child won't treat me, but it could be that I will live longer because a Blair magnet alumni helped develop effective treatments or even a cure. That is the type of thing that happens when you have students with high ability provided access to very rigorous curriculum in a specialized program. It's unlikely that a truly rigorous magnet will have a sufficient cohort in any one region; none will be the type of flagship program that Blair is.

How dramatic. Or they could attend excellent colleges and grad schools that train them to do that sort of life-saving work.

Why are you against having an outstanding program for highly able students?

Absolutely no one is against this. Some people do not think that the needs of 20 kids per year exceed the needs of the many who would benefit from regional programming.

+1 Not to mention that the number of kids who "need" Linear Algebra to graduate, AND who are not in one of the STEM magnets already in existence or coming into existence, is going to be very small. Why not just guarantee every kid on that path a spot at "regular" Wheaton if they don't make the cut for one of the STEM magnets. All five of those kids will be served, and the problem will be resolved. Much better than rolling out Linear and MV for one kid per school across the county.

Lots of kids. Lots:

6th PreAlgebra (a significant percentage are placed here; a very few are placed higher)

7th Integrated Algebra 1 (look it up -- this is coming for all students in MD beginning in 27-28)

8th Integrated Algebra 2 (ditto -- note these two take the year-placement-progression of three prior courses: Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2)

9th PreCalculus (for those continuing on the more academic of the 4 prescribed MD pathways, which will be the significant majority of those taking PreAlgebra in 6th)

10th Calc (AP Calc BC for most of those)

11th Multivariable Calculus (see explanatory post beginning with "Yep" on page 11 of the BOE meeting thread as to why this continuity is important)

12th would be nice to have Differential Equations and Linear Algebra, but this is the point where a break from the progression to take AP Stats might make sense (and be both easier to staff and allow combination with cohorts accessing AP Stats on a non-Calc BC pathway)

And some of those starting Integrated Algebra in 8th (together with the above likely making a majority of MCPS students) who find a mathematics stride a bit later than their peers may well also desire the path of Calc BC followed by MVC (only in 11th and 12th, respectively, instead of 10th & 11th). There will be some who opt for a slower 2-year progression of Calc AB and Calc BC, of course, or one of the Calcs and then AP Stats, as above, but these shouldn't be the only in-school option, and really can't be, given the needs of those above. This is all outside of any math-oriented magnet, which may have even more rigorous courses/pathways.

Bottom line -- with the state shift to the 2-year Integrated Algebra, MVC should be part of the set of classes offered in person at all MCPS high schools.

What would be wrong with starting pre-algebra in grade 7?

That 2-year integrated Algebra is going to be interested as most curriculum is setup for 3-year integrated algebra. And most people think kids need more time for Algebra/Geometry/Trig integration and application, not less.

Mscps has done math poorly for years. This sounds terrible condensing it.

It's an MSDE (state) thing, though MCPS has to make it happen. A lot of Trig and some other stuff will be trimmed. The idea is that those concepts aren't truly necessary to 3 of the 4 post-Integrated Algebra pathways they defined, and that school systems can work that content back in for the Calc pathway (that may be difficult, of course).

It can be trimmed for non stem majors and unnecessary but there is no room to fit it in ap calc. Bad idea.

The idea that has been floated is to work it in to PreCalc, not Calc.

Another idea might be to offer an MCPS-specific flavor of Honors Integrated Algebra 1 & 2 that continues the more accelerated pace that those students tend to enjoy, allowing the trimmed content back in for those aiming at the Calc path (or who just like the pace/challenge). Not sure if that would run afoul of the MSDE requirement. Implementation is left to local education agencies ("LEAs," not to be confused with other, better known LEAs in this land of acronyms; this one is a set-up for certain snyde comedy), but I'm sure there is some prescribed structure. Disclaimer: this idea is pure conjecture, not sourced from MSDE or MCPS material or conversations with them.

Trimming the content makes no sense. Precal is very hard class as it’s a big transition. Again, bad idea. I don’t get why they keep reinventing math when every time they do they make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can folks take the conversation regarding changes to math pathways to one of the several separate threads on that specific topic? It's only tangentially relevant here, presumably once the changes are in place all high schools will end up with another option to get the "regular" accelerated math kids through to graduation, even though (as now) they won't all have options for the kids who are super-accelerated and taking Algebra 1 (or the new equivalent) in 6th.

We might if you didn't end with the Algebra in 6th strawman. The plan MCPS presented leaves the MVC gap for those on the much more "standard" accelerated path (beginning HS Algebra courses in 7th). The relation to the topic of this thread was with respect to the relative need for magnet seating if such courses are not available to fill the gap for all who reasonably could and would pursue them.

Now we can leave it at that. Can you?

Why are you obsessed with magnets and forcing kids into magnets? The schools are huge. Magnets are great for kids who want them but there is no reason kids needs cannot also be met at their home schools. Yes, we need more magnets but some schools also need expanded classes to meet all students needs. It should be both, not one or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can folks take the conversation regarding changes to math pathways to one of the several separate threads on that specific topic? It's only tangentially relevant here, presumably once the changes are in place all high schools will end up with another option to get the "regular" accelerated math kids through to graduation, even though (as now) they won't all have options for the kids who are super-accelerated and taking Algebra 1 (or the new equivalent) in 6th.

We might if you didn't end with the Algebra in 6th strawman. The plan MCPS presented leaves the MVC gap for those on the much more "standard" accelerated path (beginning HS Algebra courses in 7th). The relation to the topic of this thread was with respect to the relative need for magnet seating if such courses are not available to fill the gap for all who reasonably could and would pursue them.

Now we can leave it at that. Can you?

Why are you obsessed with magnets and forcing kids into magnets? The schools are huge. Magnets are great for kids who want them but there is no reason kids needs cannot also be met at their home schools. Yes, we need more magnets but some schools also need expanded classes to meet all students needs. It should be both, not one or the other.

That was the point. Magnets should not be relied on as the way to address the needs of this group of accelerated learners -- seating can't feasibly be high enough to accommodate. At the same time, the system must address those needs...for all, not just where it is convenient to do so. Given this, all high schools should provide MVC (and anything meeting similar need in other subjects).

[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:Okay here's a compromise idea. What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-of bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable.

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program.

You don't need to look at the current make up, you need to look at the waitlisted kids. Plenty of DCC smart kids to take the slots. W schools have upper level classes and families moved there for a reason. They should not take up DCC slots.

I get it now. DCC wants more Blair seats so they are trying to exclude W students.

No it is just the same Einstein parent over and over I think. Let’s not take the bait. This person is locked into a position.

Not at Einstein. But, why should students with more opportunities take slots away from students who don't have the same opportunities? If you want Blair, move.

I don’t want Blair! Good grief my kid would hate it.

I do think that magnet opportunities should be equitably offered and that students who would benefit should not be excluded because of their zip code.

The presentation last night said the goal is for all schools to have the same core set of advanced courses and for all students to have access to similar magnet offerings. How is that not a good thing?!?!?
Why would hoarding opportunity for something that people claim is so special (Blair STEM) to one geographic region be a good policy?
It isn’t accurate to say DCC doesn’t have advanced courses. Einstein doesn’t have MV. That isn’t solved by limiting Blair STEM to DCC

Instead of focusing on magnet, start by meeting all kids' needs at their home schools, then add specialty programs. If Blair is limited to DCC students, DCC students who need MV can go to Blair or Wheaton, which are the only two schools that offer it. Your kids have tons of opportunities that our kids don't have. First equalize things.

I agree. Maybe in addition to program analysis there needs to be a core offering analysis to ensure equity of offerings at all schools. This seems more important to me than programs. Strengthen all home schools is essential and should happen first. There needs to be better information about what is actually offered at each school rather than vague statements like school A has more than school B. If that is true, it is a problem to solve so a thorough analysis of the problem should happen followed by a cause analysis and a solution proposal.

The program analysis team claims it is doing this. But then you see slides emphasizing the importance of honors courses in all schools without the acknowledgement that honors for all
Means honors for none.

There's a huge difference between honors for all (all students go to the same course, which is termed "honors") and ensuring honors classes are offered at all schools (not all students go to the same course, but any qualified student gets the honors opportunity).

In the first, due to difficulties with employing differentiation in large classes with limited resources/training, schools with small honors-level student cohorts typically provide less of the honors experience (needing to dedicate most of the time to the bulk of the class) than at schools with larger honors-level student cohorts (where the bulk of the time can be spent on them, or better if the classes, themselves, get cohorted by ability despite having the same title).

PP you responded to and I agree. But when MCOS says that all schools should have honors courses, they mean what we have now—they are not saying true honors or some other modifier to indicate it is different from what they have now

They talked about it in the context of preparing kids for AP and IB courses. Not sure what exactly that means for how they would implement it but that was the framing.

And if that is going to be the framing, then they need to start with ensuring the replacement ELC class at the elementary level is handled correctly. Meaning most schools would create the appropriate cohort class. Additionally, they will ensure that teachers across the system have the necessary time and resources to grade and provide feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can folks take the conversation regarding changes to math pathways to one of the several separate threads on that specific topic? It's only tangentially relevant here, presumably once the changes are in place all high schools will end up with another option to get the "regular" accelerated math kids through to graduation, even though (as now) they won't all have options for the kids who are super-accelerated and taking Algebra 1 (or the new equivalent) in 6th.

We might if you didn't end with the Algebra in 6th strawman. The plan MCPS presented leaves the MVC gap for those on the much more "standard" accelerated path (beginning HS Algebra courses in 7th). The relation to the topic of this thread was with respect to the relative need for magnet seating if such courses are not available to fill the gap for all who reasonably could and would pursue them.

Now we can leave it at that. Can you?

Why are you obsessed with magnets and forcing kids into magnets? The schools are huge. Magnets are great for kids who want them but there is no reason kids needs cannot also be met at their home schools. Yes, we need more magnets but some schools also need expanded classes to meet all students needs. It should be both, not one or the other.

That was the point. Magnets should not be relied on as the way to address the needs of this group of accelerated learners -- seating can't feasibly be high enough to accommodate. At the same time, the system must address those needs...for all, not just where it is convenient to do so. Given this, all high schools should provide MVC (and anything meeting similar need in other subjects).

Or, all schools should provide means to access higher level math (DE, virtual, course offering). That doesn't mean that MVC has to be provided in a HS.

[Anonymous]

I cannot justify why the county has been effective running an top notch private STEM school for 100 students per year for the last generation, and another magnet IB school where the quality of education rivals top selective private institutions.

That said, as a parent of a Blair Magnet graduate, this will be a tremendous, tremendous loss for our county and for our nation if Blair Magnet and RMIB stop their existence as we know it.