Proposed New Regions

[Anonymous]

Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

[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:Region 1 doesn't look too bad to me.

BCC is supposed to be kind of decent right? And there have often been positive posts about Einstein.

I think the main questions would be how Blair looks if they removed the county wide magnet program. And I'm not entirely sure of Northwood (as in I don't think I've heard too much about it. Know some people with siblings that graduated from there but that's it.)

Based on test scores/FARMs rates, I would say region 5 looks the most questionable. Northwest is an average/above average school. The rest of the schools are projected to have at least 35% FARMS, including the new Crown HS. With Watkins Mill over 60% FARMS and Gaithersburg HS hovering close to there. Option 3 has Seneca Valley hovering around it's current 35% FARMS but the rest of the options has it around 45%.

MCPS overall average is 44% FARMS. Totally reasonable for a grouping of high schools to be at that average. Parents who are shocked by it are a symptom of how divided the system currently is and how out of touch some parents are.

This particular grouping is always at least 46% FARMS when you add all the schools together and look at the four current realignment options.
Current: 46.8%
Option 1: 47.11%
Option 2: 47.15%
Option 3: 46.19%
Option 4: 48.68%

I haven't worked out all the other proposed regions yet.

If the overall MCPS average is 44%, this is very close to it. Unless we see a region that is sub-34 or over-54 (or something like that), it's probably the best that can be done with some manageable regional proximity. Hopefully, all the regions end up averaging in the 40s. (Really hopefully, the overall FARMS rate decreases, and not for lack of identification, but with the way society is going, both nationally and locally, I'm not holding my breath.)

The problem with averages is that it's not really spread out and you have the extremes balancing each other out.

Not all the schools are represented in the boundary studies.

But on mdreportcard, it says the FARMS rate is about 41% for MCPS and 40% if you limit to high schools.

Looking at the schools in boundary studies with a current FARMS rate of over 40% the schools are:

Blair 51.4
Gaithersburg HS 53.7
Kennedy 55.1
Northwood 50.8
Seneca Valley 47.2
Watkins Mill 54
Wheaton 62.7

According to MD Report Card, which may have different rules or source for FARMS, the schools not in the boundary studies and a FARMS population of more than 40% are:
Blake 54.8
Magruder 49.3
Paint Branch 59.2
Rockville 48.9
Sherwood 21.6
Springbrook 63.6

So Region 2 has three of the schools above, with Sherwood balancing it out. These schools aren't in any of the boundary studies. So we're looking at about a 49.8 percent FARMS rate

Region 5 has three schools above as well with Northwest and maybe Crown to balance it out. So let's say Crown has the same FARMS rate as Northwest the FARMS rate for this group would be 44.46, which we're saying is the average.

But then no other region either has this number of high FARM schools or has very low FARMS schools to balance it out.

For example:

Region 1: 34.34, with Blair's numbers probably changing if they remove the countywide magnet program

Region 3: 38.775, and this is counting Woodward's FARMS numbers to be the same as Wheatons 62.7 but likely isn't forecasted to be this high in any of the current proposed options

Region 4: 37.02

Region 6: 28.82, with Quince Orchard's numbers actually going to be lower with ten percent of it's FARMS population going to Crown

So while the overall average of FARMS in MCPS might be about 44 percent, only regions 2 and 5, looks like they'll have an average FARMS rate of above 40%

Regions 3 and 4 are a little bit over 35 percent, not quite 40 percent. So would consider this the average.

Region 1 is relatively low, below 35 percent.

And region 6, with the lowest at 28.8 percent and likely will go lower with Crown taking some of Quince Orchard's FARMS students.

So the FARMS distribution isn't that spread out across all the regions evenly and you still have disparity in the underserved areas, such as the East county and some of the Gaithersburg area

I posted the average FARMs rates for each proposed region a couple of pages back.

I overestimated the FARMS rate for Woodward, making it match Wheatons at 62 percent, when most proposals forecast it to be about 35 percent. And underestimated Crowns to match Northwest's even though some options show it be potentially 35 to 45 percent. This is to try to make Region 3's FARMS rate as high as possible, and region 5 as realistically low as possible.

Most of the regions fall in the expected 35 to 40 percent.

The exceptions are regions 2 (NEC plus Sherwood at 49.8), region 5 (44.4) and region 6 (28.8)

Regions 5 and 6 border each other and some schools can easily be swapped and bring the regions towards the middle of their current ones.

Region 2 should have the NEC schools split up and spread out. They can find regions for it that match the current drive between schools within the same proposed region.

Is there a point to balnce FARMS across regions? High school experience for most kids will be there home HS. It's a futile experience to try to balaqnce region. At best, HS in middle of region can be balanced to some extent.

It’s a new attempt to bus in bus out to achieve balancing FARMS across the regions, at expense of social wellbeing of the students

Confused how this harms students’ socially when they have a choice to….. not do it.

This provides options for students in schools where options are perhaps more needed

Even when students choose to attend schools far from home voluntarily, they often don’t fully understand what they’re giving up, like close friendships, community support, and a sense of belonging. Being far away can lead to isolation and disconnect, especially at a time in life when those social connections really matter. Without clear guidance, these choices can end up doing more harm than good in the long run, both for the students and the communities they leave behind.

Well I understand that perspective but in the DCC that ship has long since sailed. I am interested in programming that will strengthen the options these kids have.

The DCC model has not proven to be effective. In practice, consortia are struggling rather than thriving. Given these challenges, expanding this model to the rest of the county raises serious concerns about its viability and long-term impact.

The DCC model is not what is proposed. It’s a regional program model not a simple choice model.

The regional model is a choice model, same as DCC and NEC. We just don't know what programs will be assigned to the various high schools. The school district is now imposing the regional choice model across the entire school district.

No, it is not the same as the DCC and NEC. With this regional model, the default is that most kids just go to their home school and that's it. There's no ranking, no choice process. There would only be an application process for specific special programs for those who might be interested.

[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:Region 1 doesn't look too bad to me.

BCC is supposed to be kind of decent right? And there have often been positive posts about Einstein.

I think the main questions would be how Blair looks if they removed the county wide magnet program. And I'm not entirely sure of Northwood (as in I don't think I've heard too much about it. Know some people with siblings that graduated from there but that's it.)

Based on test scores/FARMs rates, I would say region 5 looks the most questionable. Northwest is an average/above average school. The rest of the schools are projected to have at least 35% FARMS, including the new Crown HS. With Watkins Mill over 60% FARMS and Gaithersburg HS hovering close to there. Option 3 has Seneca Valley hovering around it's current 35% FARMS but the rest of the options has it around 45%.

MCPS overall average is 44% FARMS. Totally reasonable for a grouping of high schools to be at that average. Parents who are shocked by it are a symptom of how divided the system currently is and how out of touch some parents are.

This particular grouping is always at least 46% FARMS when you add all the schools together and look at the four current realignment options.
Current: 46.8%
Option 1: 47.11%
Option 2: 47.15%
Option 3: 46.19%
Option 4: 48.68%

I haven't worked out all the other proposed regions yet.

If the overall MCPS average is 44%, this is very close to it. Unless we see a region that is sub-34 or over-54 (or something like that), it's probably the best that can be done with some manageable regional proximity. Hopefully, all the regions end up averaging in the 40s. (Really hopefully, the overall FARMS rate decreases, and not for lack of identification, but with the way society is going, both nationally and locally, I'm not holding my breath.)

The problem with averages is that it's not really spread out and you have the extremes balancing each other out.

Not all the schools are represented in the boundary studies.

But on mdreportcard, it says the FARMS rate is about 41% for MCPS and 40% if you limit to high schools.

Looking at the schools in boundary studies with a current FARMS rate of over 40% the schools are:

Blair 51.4
Gaithersburg HS 53.7
Kennedy 55.1
Northwood 50.8
Seneca Valley 47.2
Watkins Mill 54
Wheaton 62.7

According to MD Report Card, which may have different rules or source for FARMS, the schools not in the boundary studies and a FARMS population of more than 40% are:
Blake 54.8
Magruder 49.3
Paint Branch 59.2
Rockville 48.9
Sherwood 21.6
Springbrook 63.6

So Region 2 has three of the schools above, with Sherwood balancing it out. These schools aren't in any of the boundary studies. So we're looking at about a 49.8 percent FARMS rate

Region 5 has three schools above as well with Northwest and maybe Crown to balance it out. So let's say Crown has the same FARMS rate as Northwest the FARMS rate for this group would be 44.46, which we're saying is the average.

But then no other region either has this number of high FARM schools or has very low FARMS schools to balance it out.

For example:

Region 1: 34.34, with Blair's numbers probably changing if they remove the countywide magnet program

Region 3: 38.775, and this is counting Woodward's FARMS numbers to be the same as Wheatons 62.7 but likely isn't forecasted to be this high in any of the current proposed options

Region 4: 37.02

Region 6: 28.82, with Quince Orchard's numbers actually going to be lower with ten percent of it's FARMS population going to Crown

So while the overall average of FARMS in MCPS might be about 44 percent, only regions 2 and 5, looks like they'll have an average FARMS rate of above 40%

Regions 3 and 4 are a little bit over 35 percent, not quite 40 percent. So would consider this the average.

Region 1 is relatively low, below 35 percent.

And region 6, with the lowest at 28.8 percent and likely will go lower with Crown taking some of Quince Orchard's FARMS students.

So the FARMS distribution isn't that spread out across all the regions evenly and you still have disparity in the underserved areas, such as the East county and some of the Gaithersburg area

I posted the average FARMs rates for each proposed region a couple of pages back.

I overestimated the FARMS rate for Woodward, making it match Wheatons at 62 percent, when most proposals forecast it to be about 35 percent. And underestimated Crowns to match Northwest's even though some options show it be potentially 35 to 45 percent. This is to try to make Region 3's FARMS rate as high as possible, and region 5 as realistically low as possible.

Most of the regions fall in the expected 35 to 40 percent.

The exceptions are regions 2 (NEC plus Sherwood at 49.8), region 5 (44.4) and region 6 (28.8)

Regions 5 and 6 border each other and some schools can easily be swapped and bring the regions towards the middle of their current ones.

Region 2 should have the NEC schools split up and spread out. They can find regions for it that match the current drive between schools within the same proposed region.

Is there a point to balnce FARMS across regions? High school experience for most kids will be there home HS. It's a futile experience to try to balaqnce region. At best, HS in middle of region can be balanced to some extent.

It’s a new attempt to bus in bus out to achieve balancing FARMS across the regions, at expense of social wellbeing of the students

Confused how this harms students’ socially when they have a choice to….. not do it.

This provides options for students in schools where options are perhaps more needed

Even when students choose to attend schools far from home voluntarily, they often don’t fully understand what they’re giving up, like close friendships, community support, and a sense of belonging. Being far away can lead to isolation and disconnect, especially at a time in life when those social connections really matter. Without clear guidance, these choices can end up doing more harm than good in the long run, both for the students and the communities they leave behind.

Well I understand that perspective but in the DCC that ship has long since sailed. I am interested in programming that will strengthen the options these kids have.

The DCC model has not proven to be effective. In practice, consortia are struggling rather than thriving. Given these challenges, expanding this model to the rest of the county raises serious concerns about its viability and long-term impact.

The DCC model is not what is proposed. It’s a regional program model not a simple choice model.

The regional model is a choice model, same as DCC and NEC. We just don't know what programs will be assigned to the various high schools. The school district is now imposing the regional choice model across the entire school district.

My impression is that it is not a choice model they are suggesting, though the (typical) ambiguity with which they've presented this leaves that a bit in question. If so, then one stays at one's home school unless one applied to a magnet program, whether one that was interest-based (pure lottery from among those applying, as with the extra-regional seats for the Middle School Magnet Consortium) or criteria-based (either via litmus-based lottery pools, as with the current criteria-based Middle School programs, or admissions committee ranking of candidates, as with current criteria-based High School programs).

The choice model allowed one simply to choose another school in a consortium, separate from any magnet that school might host, though there may be non-magnet school-specific programming (e.g., MC2 @ Northwood). That model broke down because the differential demand for some schools didn't really allow choice to happen with any reasonable reliability. It may be better to put in enough differential funding/resourcing to schools to ensure reasonably equivalent non-magnet experiences (not necessarily outcomes) across the system. If you'd get the same courses at school A as at school B, and you might even get a lower student-teacher ratio, do you really need to go to a farther-away school B to rub shoulders with a greater number of high performers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Each school will have 1-2 programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Each school will have 1-2 programs.

5 schools each hosting 1-2 programs and offer bus routes to the rest of 4 schools in the same region. That’s like at least 10-20 buses added each region and then multiplies by 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

I think PP is saying that instead of Whitman kids having to go to RM for IB they will (likely) be able to go to BCC for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Each school will have 1-2 programs.

5 schools each hosting 1-2 programs and offer bus routes to the rest of 4 schools in the same region. That’s like at least 10-20 buses added each region and then multiplies by 6.

how on earth does that reduce transportation costs?

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Each school will have 1-2 programs.

5 schools each hosting 1-2 programs and offer bus routes to the rest of 4 schools in the same region. That’s like at least 10-20 buses added each region and then multiplies by 6.

how on earth does that reduce transportation costs?

It appears the design team has not yet considered logistics and transportation costs, and the proposal remains largely theoretical at this stage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Each school will have 1-2 programs.

5 schools each hosting 1-2 programs and offer bus routes to the rest of 4 schools in the same region. That’s like at least 10-20 buses added each region and then multiplies by 6.

How does that compare to current, longer routes?

Will all programs get buses? Middle school immersion does not, fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Each school will have 1-2 programs.

5 schools each hosting 1-2 programs and offer bus routes to the rest of 4 schools in the same region. That’s like at least 10-20 buses added each region and then multiplies by 6.

How does that compare to current, longer routes?

Will all programs get buses? Middle school immersion does not, fwiw.

The presentation said currently they cannot offer busses for all that attend these programs. But in the future they’ll be able to offer bus for all if adopting this regional model. I don’t think they’ve done a careful analysis on the logistics.

[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:Springbrook to Whitman, avoiding highways shows 13.1 miles 34 minutes
Springbrook to WJ, avoiding highways, 10.7 miles, 30 minutes

Blake to WJ, avoiding highways, 12.9 miles, 32 minutes


Watkins Mill High School to Wootton, 10.5 miles, 30 minutes
Watkins Mill High School to QO, 6.7 miles, 20 minutes

Are those far off from what they have now:
Kennedy to Wootton, 9.4 miles, 25 minutes
Damascus to Quince Orchard, 14.8 miles, 30 minutes

They are already pairing Whitman with a bunch of lower tier high poverty schools from the DCC. Even BCC has its problems. There isn’t enough rich schools to give everyone a seat at one. At some point your kids will have to go to school with the neighbors you chose. What happens when the W kids reject a watered down magnet and just stay home as many do already. If the rich kids don’t opt in how many seats can they truly offer the kids who want out from the poorer schools in the cluster. You’ll have kids picking the rich school’s program even if they don’t care for the subject matter and if it is even the least bit selective the and full of slots will go to the brightest middle class kids leaving the typical poorest kids once again stuck in their home school now with less middle kids.

I don’t believe these regional programs will appeal to W students at all. Instead, they simply take away their opportunity to participate in the magnet experience. While there may be a few slots available at W schools for students from other schools, these will likely be the weakest programs since MCPS tends to place the more popular programs at lower-performing schools

MCPS is trying to discourage W kids from going to the magnets. They feel W kids already have enrichment activities and opportunities. So, they want to keep the magnets for mostly the eastern side and the TP/SS area in south MoCo. That is why they are going to put the watered down magnets in the eastern part of the county.

Your opinion on current magnet schools is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the future when those magnets will not exist and instead we will have several regions, each with the same specialty programs. Only one of those regions is in the southern part of the county. It has not been determined yet what and where the specialty programs would be in each region. Once they do exist, it would not make any sense to actively discourage “W kids” from going to them. But yes, often specialty magnet programs are placed in schools that need to attract more kids. So a “W kid” might need to ride a bus to a “lesser” neighborhood for that opportunity.

I just don’t see how this setup is going to make the new programs successful. You’re getting rid of well-established flagship programs and replacing them with brand-new, untested regional ones and many of which are being placed in low-performing schools.

Why would students from better-performing schools want to go to those programs? And if these programs are mainly for students in struggling schools, why not just add them there like we’ve done before?

It feels like we’re trying to build something new by tearing down everything that’s already working. That doesn’t seem like the right approach.

I understand that some people are upset that Blair will no longer draw from half the county but saying we’re “getting rid” of it seems dramatic.

But they are going to get rid of it, and replace it with regional ones.

Are they? I was under the impression a STEM magnet would most likely remain at Blair, for example.

Why would you assume that?

Because it has been a successful program and existing teachers and resources are there. There’s no reason to move it. If they announce they are scrapping it, I will concede you have a point. As of now I would be astounded.

MCPS makes astounding decisions. Are you new to MCPS?

I mean yes, there's no guarantees of anything, for sure. But that doesn't mean it's not highly, highly likely that the Blair SMCS magnet will remain at Blair (albeit potentially with different eligibility.). There are a ton of good reasons they'd want to keep it there and no good ones I can think of they'd want to move it (except that possibly they might not want to keep both SMCS and CAP there, but if so, they would almost certainly move CAP rather than SMCS, and they might just let Blair keep them both.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

The proposal is that all schools will have programs, but likely only a couple of them will have academic magnet-type programs (advanced academic programs that you have to have high test scores or similar to get into.). Other schools might have a program focusing on healthcare professions or the arts or something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just noodling...

Will W students have more or fewer magnet opportunities? It would seem if Blair retains the SMCS magnet, there would be more slots available there, with its only drawing from 1/3 to 1/4 of the population it currently serves. It would be no further away. It would seem that the switch of IB available from RM to B-CC would, likewise, offer more seats to Whitman for a similar reason while being considerably closer.

Are Whitman students heavily favoring Poolesville Ecology over their own Social Justice and worrying about the loss of that specific opportunity? (Might these sunset, in any case?)

Am I missing something about the above? Or is it just that those in the Whitman-zoned area are hoping that, with enough complaint, the move to regionalization will result in placement of one or more of the highest-academic-caliber magnets at the school within that region which consistently has demonstrated the highest academic results from their in-bounds population? If that is an option, does it present a solution that better meets overall need across the region, or does it do the opposite?

RM and BCC are not in the same region, so your point is moot.

Whitman won't get a program. The program will be placed in the lower performing schools. That's why it's called a "magnet".

Whitman already has a county-wide program, though it is interest-based. That will stay there but will only be available to region 1 students. Every school in MCPS will have 1-2 programs, including the Ws (though perhaps those will all be interest-based and not criteria-based). -DP

[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:Springbrook to Whitman, avoiding highways shows 13.1 miles 34 minutes
Springbrook to WJ, avoiding highways, 10.7 miles, 30 minutes

Blake to WJ, avoiding highways, 12.9 miles, 32 minutes


Watkins Mill High School to Wootton, 10.5 miles, 30 minutes
Watkins Mill High School to QO, 6.7 miles, 20 minutes

Are those far off from what they have now:
Kennedy to Wootton, 9.4 miles, 25 minutes
Damascus to Quince Orchard, 14.8 miles, 30 minutes

They are already pairing Whitman with a bunch of lower tier high poverty schools from the DCC. Even BCC has its problems. There isn’t enough rich schools to give everyone a seat at one. At some point your kids will have to go to school with the neighbors you chose. What happens when the W kids reject a watered down magnet and just stay home as many do already. If the rich kids don’t opt in how many seats can they truly offer the kids who want out from the poorer schools in the cluster. You’ll have kids picking the rich school’s program even if they don’t care for the subject matter and if it is even the least bit selective the and full of slots will go to the brightest middle class kids leaving the typical poorest kids once again stuck in their home school now with less middle kids.

I don’t believe these regional programs will appeal to W students at all. Instead, they simply take away their opportunity to participate in the magnet experience. While there may be a few slots available at W schools for students from other schools, these will likely be the weakest programs since MCPS tends to place the more popular programs at lower-performing schools

MCPS is trying to discourage W kids from going to the magnets. They feel W kids already have enrichment activities and opportunities. So, they want to keep the magnets for mostly the eastern side and the TP/SS area in south MoCo. That is why they are going to put the watered down magnets in the eastern part of the county.

Your opinion on current magnet schools is irrelevant to the discussion, which is about the future when those magnets will not exist and instead we will have several regions, each with the same specialty programs. Only one of those regions is in the southern part of the county. It has not been determined yet what and where the specialty programs would be in each region. Once they do exist, it would not make any sense to actively discourage “W kids” from going to them. But yes, often specialty magnet programs are placed in schools that need to attract more kids. So a “W kid” might need to ride a bus to a “lesser” neighborhood for that opportunity.

I just don’t see how this setup is going to make the new programs successful. You’re getting rid of well-established flagship programs and replacing them with brand-new, untested regional ones and many of which are being placed in low-performing schools.

Why would students from better-performing schools want to go to those programs? And if these programs are mainly for students in struggling schools, why not just add them there like we’ve done before?

It feels like we’re trying to build something new by tearing down everything that’s already working. That doesn’t seem like the right approach.

I understand that some people are upset that Blair will no longer draw from half the county but saying we’re “getting rid” of it seems dramatic.

But they are going to get rid of it, and replace it with regional ones.

Are they? I was under the impression a STEM magnet would most likely remain at Blair, for example.

Why would you assume that?

Because it has been a successful program and existing teachers and resources are there. There’s no reason to move it. If they announce they are scrapping it, I will concede you have a point. As of now I would be astounded.

MCPS makes astounding decisions. Are you new to MCPS?

I mean yes, there's no guarantees of anything, for sure. But that doesn't mean it's not highly, highly likely that the Blair SMCS magnet will remain at Blair (albeit potentially with different eligibility.). There are a ton of good reasons they'd want to keep it there and no good ones I can think of they'd want to move it (except that possibly they might not want to keep both SMCS and CAP there, but if so, they would almost certainly move CAP rather than SMCS, and they might just let Blair keep them both.)

Blair is likely to keep both. They aren’t offered at other schools in the region.