Parents of current 7th graders - what do you think about the 6 regional magnets

[Anonymous]

Oh come on. I am no fan of the Blair and RMIB folks who act like the sky will fall if you expand their programs from the top 1% to the top 3% or 5%, but anyone who thinks that 22% of MCPS students are prepared for the super-accelerated program at Blair has no real understanding of Blair SMCS or the niche it fills for highly gifted kids, which is absolutely not and should not be just "generic math and science acceleration and enrichment for bright kids. (And I say this as a parent of bright kids who are in the top 20% academically but nowhere near the top 1% or even 3%, and so theoretically would benefit from these changes once they get to high school but in reality are absolutely not the right fit for a program like Blair. I still would rather protect the value of highly advanced programs for the kids who need them, rather than turn them into a generic honors program that my kids could get into.)

Where'd you get that 22%, anyway? It doesn't make a bit of sense (unless "the criteria" is something super low and generic, like "has taken Algebra 1 by 8th grade" or "has a MAP-M score above the 80th percentile" or something. But those things have little to do with the actual criteria to get into and benefit from programs like SMCS.)

They got that ridiculous number of 22% based who is eligible to apply to magnets. So magnets set a relatively low threshold to encourage kids to apply and some people run with the idea that that means that we need 30 magnets to host 22% of student population. Never mind that the math proficiency for the county is lowly 36% - only 36% of student meet basic state math requirements. And yet, 22% are somehow worthy of being magnet students. Unfortunately, people who have absolutely no idea of what advanced program means are running the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.

So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

Ohhhh. This is it. This is how MCPS staff still somehow see yourselves as the good guys here. You think that better-off families have louder voices (true) and somehow use that to justify that all concerns must be from better-off families (false) and that refusing to gather feedback is a moral choice because MCPS staff already understand and reflect the interests of the less-represented voices (false) and that letting families have any opportunities to make suggestions and give input would only benefit the interests of better-off families (false.)

It's pretty ridiculous coming from the folks who refuse to do any kind of equity analysis and didn't even consider equity or demographics in their program placement decisions....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

The data on the proficient students who meet the criteria but didn’t apply due to transportation issues or because their parents did not know about the program show exactly who needs these changes.

Every parent in that situation who learns more about what MCPS is doing and haven’t been exposed to misleading claims about programs intentionally watered down or intended to go away, wants the regional model.

When you compare the 1% who applied and got a seat vs 3% who applied but did not get a seat vs 22% who qualified based on meeting the criteria, the numbers show a different picture from the one you are presenting. The vast majority would not benefit from things staying the same, not even for the criteria-based programs.

More parents who have observed the differences between MCPS when seventh graders were born in 2013 (the data on which EPS did their study) and the current status of MCPS are finally connecting the dots confirming that the EPS study accurately predicted what would happen if access to these programs were not expanded.

Or are we to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary - evidence that we are living through as well as reported data - that everyone but the 1% who have always benefited is prejudiced? Not happening!

Oh come on. I am no fan of the Blair and RMIB folks who act like the sky will fall if you expand their programs from the top 1% to the top 3% or 5%, but anyone who thinks that 22% of MCPS students are prepared for the super-accelerated program at Blair has no real understanding of Blair SMCS or the niche it fills for highly gifted kids, which is absolutely not and should not be just "generic math and science acceleration and enrichment for bright kids. (And I say this as a parent of bright kids who are in the top 20% academically but nowhere near the top 1% or even 3%, and so theoretically would benefit from these changes once they get to high school but in reality are absolutely not the right fit for a program like Blair. I still would rather protect the value of highly advanced programs for the kids who need them, rather than turn them into a generic honors program that my kids could get into.)

Where'd you get that 22%, anyway? It doesn't make a bit of sense (unless "the criteria" is something super low and generic, like "has taken Algebra 1 by 8th grade" or "has a MAP-M score above the 80th percentile" or something. But those things have little to do with the actual criteria to get into and benefit from programs like SMCS.)

Not everyone wants Blair but they want their smart kids to get the classes they need and want. Your Blair obsession is strange. There is easily a few thousand kids who are gifted and not getting any classes to challenge them and it’s only going to get worse when they are forced to their weak home schools. I don’t think the Blair set up was great so we turned it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think pushback and pressure on this proposal is mounting. Right now, MCPS and the board are standing firm in shoving it down the public's throats. Not sure if that will get them across the finish line. We'll have to see how things play out over the next few months.

You see MCPS is a large organization and there are many schools that are you know 1 and 2 stars mostly nominally 3 star in MCPS. You'll see some of the vocal ones on here, but in general most people are all for busting up the poo poo elite squad who are seen as taking advantage of the system and throwing us lottery crumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most current data: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

There is a break down school by school and examples of what typical pathways might look like.

This is very helpful. Thank you for sharing. My child is currently in a private but wants to go public for HS.

If a program isn't offered in the region, does that mean my child wouldn't be able to apply for it? Are there any special exceptions for things not available?

Each student is guaranteed to have access to the same program themes available in every region across the county.

Again, this robot-like nonsense from CO. Phrases like 'believe in leadership", "well thought out answers to pointed questions", and now "program themes". It reads almost like someone from Lumen from Severance.

"Program themes" means nothing. There are real classes, teachers and students. For example, in one region families will have access to the well-established RBIM program that each year sends dozens of students to top universities. In another region they will have access to the new Kennedy IB program - worst high school in the county with no new teachers and no new resources to execute the program. But, hey, it will be the same "program themes".

How did RBIM become a strong program? It had to be built - through strong parent engagement, teacher preparation and resources. How will these new programs get built? Likely in the same way - by strengthening family engagement, through the predicted influx of teachers from the ACET program and possible resources from federal and state sources, donations, local corporations, reserves, etc and perhaps less resources necessary for food distribution.

Program themes means programs under various umbrellas, including STEM, medical, humanities, etc. Guaranteed regional access for every student is a significant improvement over what we have now, (even if you can’t see how your child who is attending private school might benefit).

In other words, for the next 10 or so years student will lose access, with the hope that one day a few of 30 magnets will establish themselves.

It is clear that you are close to this catastrophe in making and not just some random poster. I guess it is commendable that you are up this morning and posting lengthy defenses. But at the end of the day, you provide zero reasons for us to believe that anyone will benefit from this restructuring. Your assumptions are wrong, your estimates are wrong, everything is wrong.

What are referring to when you write “losing access”?

That’s the opposite of what was written.

Let me spell it out for you. Right now, every student in the county can apply, for example, to RBIM. They may or may not get in; the program has limited number of spots. Under the new plan, only kids from 4 or 5 schools will be able to apply. The rest will lose access to that very successful program. Instead, they will be offered access to new unproven programs, placed often in schools with bad reputation that will be given no resources (teachers, etc.) to build them. So, for people not drinking Kool-Aid, that means losing access.

So we should fight for better resources to build them, right?

Here is the right order of steps: fight for resources, expand successful programs

The proposed plan is: dismantle successful programs, create 30 new ones, fight for resources -----> many kids get sacrificed for an experiment in ''iterative systems process", whatever that means

Why do you say that “successful programs are being dismantled”? MCPS is saying and appears to be doing the complete opposite of that.

MCPS is creating a swath of new programs using an iterative systems approach based on data from over 40 years of experience implementing programs to ensure that there are no gaps - that the potential of each student is “unleashed”.

You keep saying "iterative approach" but I'm not sure you know what it means. Iterative means that the approach changes in response to concerns raised by stakeholders. That's not what is happening here. Parents/teachers/administrators/community members are all raising concerns and MCPS is not changing anything as a result. Yes, they hold meetings, but those meetings are tightly controlled and there's no follow-up to suggest an iterative process.

I believe that they are listening to everyone. However, it is also understandable why you may feel that way. The ones who have always benefited are the loudest voices in the room. MCPS is fighting for the families who haven’t even heard of the programs or understand why they are relevant to their student or why they need to start preparing as early as elementary school.

When speaking to MCPS parents, many are still unaware of basics like RBIM or the dual enrollment program. Many have no idea what local industry have the highest growth or what employers are looking for or what signs of talent or interest to look for in their kids. Along with that, students from the poorest families often end up with the highest student loans. MCPS is standing up for students whose advocates are not yet even in the room and I respect and appreciate them for that.

Piece-meal implementation with resources mostly consolidated around already successful programs is neither cost-efficient nor equitable and unfortunately, that appears to be precisely what the vastly more fortunate are fighting for because they fear that their favorite programs might be watered down.

Ohhhh. This is it. This is how MCPS staff still somehow see yourselves as the good guys here. You think that better-off families have louder voices (true) and somehow use that to justify that all concerns must be from better-off families (false) and that refusing to gather feedback is a moral choice because MCPS staff already understand and reflect the interests of the less-represented voices (false) and that letting families have any opportunities to make suggestions and give input would only benefit the interests of better-off families (false.)

It's pretty ridiculous coming from the folks who refuse to do any kind of equity analysis and didn't even consider equity or demographics in their program placement decisions....

This +1. Assuming people who are willing and able to give valuable inputs are privileged is full of prejudice, and assuming central office staffers are presenting the poor and URM's voice is another bucket of prejudice.

The data on the proficient students who meet the criteria but didn’t apply due to transportation issues or because their parents did not know about the program show exactly who needs these changes.

Every parent in that situation who learns more about what MCPS is doing and haven’t been exposed to misleading claims about programs intentionally watered down or intended to go away, wants the regional model.

When you compare the 1% who applied and got a seat vs 3% who applied but did not get a seat vs 22% who qualified based on meeting the criteria, the numbers show a different picture from the one you are presenting. The vast majority would not benefit from things staying the same, not even for the criteria-based programs.

More parents who have observed the differences between MCPS when seventh graders were born in 2013 (the data on which EPS did their study) and the current status of MCPS are finally connecting the dots confirming that the EPS study accurately predicted what would happen if access to these programs were not expanded.

Or are we to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary - evidence that we are living through as well as reported data - that everyone but the 1% who have always benefited is prejudiced? Not happening!

DP your post is quite incoherent.

I don't know anyone with kids in RMIB or SMCS or any criteria based magnet. Everyone I know is livid about the proposal because of the impact on our home school. The proposed transportation model is not going to be more equitable that is preposterous.

Stop acting like you speak for the people you refuse to consult but happy to put offensive AI images of in your power points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think pushback and pressure on this proposal is mounting. Right now, MCPS and the board are standing firm in shoving it down the public's throats. Not sure if that will get them across the finish line. We'll have to see how things play out over the next few months.

You see MCPS is a large organization and there are many schools that are you know 1 and 2 stars mostly nominally 3 star in MCPS. You'll see some of the vocal ones on here, but in general most people are all for busting up the poo poo elite squad who are seen as taking advantage of the system and throwing us lottery crumbs.

The proposed plan is nothing but crumbs packaged to sound that people are getting something. No new teachers; no new resources; just bunch of programs that are either watered down and not much of an improvement over existing class offerings or some highly specialized programs that meet interests of very few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think pushback and pressure on this proposal is mounting. Right now, MCPS and the board are standing firm in shoving it down the public's throats. Not sure if that will get them across the finish line. We'll have to see how things play out over the next few months.

You see MCPS is a large organization and there are many schools that are you know 1 and 2 stars mostly nominally 3 star in MCPS. You'll see some of the vocal ones on here, but in general most people are all for busting up the poo poo elite squad who are seen as taking advantage of the system and throwing us lottery crumbs.

The proposed plan is nothing but crumbs packaged to sound that people are getting something. No new teachers; no new resources; just bunch of programs that are either watered down and not much of an improvement over existing class offerings or some highly specialized programs that meet interests of very few.

Of, course not do you think they were going to share their eliteness with us? When everyone gets a good education, your poo poo won't smell as bad.

[Anonymous]

I have a 7th grader at westland middle school. We love close by and there's no way I'd consider a magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think pushback and pressure on this proposal is mounting. Right now, MCPS and the board are standing firm in shoving it down the public's throats. Not sure if that will get them across the finish line. We'll have to see how things play out over the next few months.

You see MCPS is a large organization and there are many schools that are you know 1 and 2 stars mostly nominally 3 star in MCPS. You'll see some of the vocal ones on here, but in general most people are all for busting up the poo poo elite squad who are seen as taking advantage of the system and throwing us lottery crumbs.

The proposed plan is nothing but crumbs packaged to sound that people are getting something. No new teachers; no new resources; just bunch of programs that are either watered down and not much of an improvement over existing class offerings or some highly specialized programs that meet interests of very few.

This is what you really need to focus on vs. worrying about Blair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think pushback and pressure on this proposal is mounting. Right now, MCPS and the board are standing firm in shoving it down the public's throats. Not sure if that will get them across the finish line. We'll have to see how things play out over the next few months.

You see MCPS is a large organization and there are many schools that are you know 1 and 2 stars mostly nominally 3 star in MCPS. You'll see some of the vocal ones on here, but in general most people are all for busting up the poo poo elite squad who are seen as taking advantage of the system and throwing us lottery crumbs.

The proposed plan is nothing but crumbs packaged to sound that people are getting something. No new teachers; no new resources; just bunch of programs that are either watered down and not much of an improvement over existing class offerings or some highly specialized programs that meet interests of very few.

Of, course not do you think they were going to share their eliteness with us? When everyone gets a good education, your poo poo won't smell as bad.

Some don't want your kids to get a good education - less competition.

[Anonymous]

I hope those opposed to this plan will testify against it and write in to the BOE. We have until March, when the BOE will vote on it, per the updated timeline at the last Board meeting:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

[Anonymous]

The current class of 7th graders that may be the first group to go through the new process have really gotten the short end of the stick at mcps if they've been around since KG.

1. They had the horrible benchmark curriculum and can barely spell.
2. Didn't start Eureka math till 1st grade - the second half of which went down the hole because of COVID
3. For those that qualified, got zero enrichment bc of COVID in 2nd and 3rd grade.
4. For those that needed it, county wide ELC was rolled out when they were in 5th grade so they missed another chance for enrichment in 4th of their school didn't have ELC (many did not! And those that did had inequitable implementation).
5. Now they'll be guinea pigs for a bunch of random programs that the county is slapping together like a cheese sandwich in the cafeteria.

Good luck class of 2031.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope those opposed to this plan will testify against it and write in to the BOE. We have until March, when the BOE will vote on it, per the updated timeline at the last Board meeting:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

This is a done deal. They don't care about testimony which is why they barely acknowledge it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current class of 7th graders that may be the first group to go through the new process have really gotten the short end of the stick at mcps if they've been around since KG.

1. They had the horrible benchmark curriculum and can barely spell.
2. Didn't start Eureka math till 1st grade - the second half of which went down the hole because of COVID
3. For those that qualified, got zero enrichment bc of COVID in 2nd and 3rd grade.
4. For those that needed it, county wide ELC was rolled out when they were in 5th grade so they missed another chance for enrichment in 4th of their school didn't have ELC (many did not! And those that did had inequitable implementation).
5. Now they'll be guinea pigs for a bunch of random programs that the county is slapping together like a cheese sandwich in the cafeteria.

Good luck class of 2031.

For the last 20+ years, they have taken an approach of not teaching vocabulary or spelling or grammar, which is a huge reason why kids are struggling. They need to go back to traditional teaching methods. Math with the strategies also doesn't work. Back to the basics, including math facts. You have to teach at home or get tutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current class of 7th graders that may be the first group to go through the new process have really gotten the short end of the stick at mcps if they've been around since KG.

1. They had the horrible benchmark curriculum and can barely spell.
2. Didn't start Eureka math till 1st grade - the second half of which went down the hole because of COVID
3. For those that qualified, got zero enrichment bc of COVID in 2nd and 3rd grade.
4. For those that needed it, county wide ELC was rolled out when they were in 5th grade so they missed another chance for enrichment in 4th of their school didn't have ELC (many did not! And those that did had inequitable implementation).
5. Now they'll be guinea pigs for a bunch of random programs that the county is slapping together like a cheese sandwich in the cafeteria.

Good luck class of 2031.

I agree this class has gotten screwed, and that 1 and 5 in particular really suck, but:

2. Eureka math is so slow and cyclical in grades K-2 that I doubt missing it in K matters that much
3. There's not much enrichment available for now kids in 2nd and 3rd even outside of COVID.
4. There was literally one grade of kids who got two years of ELC, this year's 6th graders. Some older kids got it in their individual schools, and a few schools are letting 5th graders finish it out, but no 4th graders or below will ever have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope those opposed to this plan will testify against it and write in to the BOE. We have until March, when the BOE will vote on it, per the updated timeline at the last Board meeting:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

This is a done deal. They don't care about testimony which is why they barely acknowledge it.

No one wants this plan but CO and the two members of Black/Brien Coalition. Will they be able to ram it down anyway?