Do these docs show any changes in #s or courses for existing prograns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the heck is this AgroEcolog and sometimes names Environmental Science program and why is it criteria base? More importantly what is the criteria?

For this to be criteria based it needs to require AP Seminar for 10th grade English, AP Research as an Elective, a data related course for math or tech Ed, and likely an Intro to Sustainability or o Urban planning related engineering/science elective.

They should be sitting down the UN to discuss incorporating the SDGs, FDA/USDA for partnership and internships, etc.

Seriously who is creating these and thinks they equate with rigor.

I dunno about the rest, but pretty sure the "why" of why it's criteria-based is that families were complaining that there was no academic criteria-based magnet at Northwood (maybe other schools as well, but that's the one I know about.). So they decided to add this agroecology thing which pretty obviously should be interest-based (and may not have enough interest to operate) but label it criteria-based to try to shut families up and undercut our ability to make the case to the BOE that this is inequitable. They will probably go ahead and switch it back to interest-based next year after the plan passes

Everything in this comment is probably exactly correct, and it is so disheartening.

Putting a criteria based program in each school makes sense. So does including one interest based program. I would be fine with that. But now all schools have multiple programs and they are trying to say that the local programs might/should stay, but this makes zero sense. They should stop pretending there is budget and resources for everything. They should stop pretending they can role out successfully this many programs. Doing one criteria and one interest at each school would be more than enough for them to focus on on getting correct along with improvements to standard HS.

They are making this unnecessarily cumbersome and more complex by trying to please everyone instead of making thoughtful decisions and implementation plans.

[Anonymous]

Sigh. According to the metric here, students will have to achieve an “Industry Recognized Credential” to demonstrate completion, even if the focus is music performance or art. What job-related certification do we give them for being a sculptor or a dancer or a trumpet player? This is the triumph of educational bureaucracy box-checking over actual education.

Meanwhile, we’re passing along and graduating kids who can barely read.

[Anonymous]

Here they are: the “credentials” students can check off to prove their arts degree according to the state of Maryland’s Blueprint for the Future: certifications in Photoshop, Acrobat, mobile web design. https://marylandpublicschools.org/about/pages/approved-credentials.aspx

Oh well, my kid is a violist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

Are all 1500 of those kids capable of handling the advanced curriculum? Just because people apply doesn't mean it would be a good fit. I have one kid in a competitive program, and another kid who is applying to it this year but has no business being in it. They only applied because the common app makes it so easy. If the idea is to take care of everyone on the waitlist, then that is an interest-based program not a criteria-based program.

No idea. MCPS only shares limited information and they use numbers to advance their own agenda. But if even half of the students in the applicant pools are qualified, MCPS will still be falling short of meeting demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. According to the metric here, students will have to achieve an “Industry Recognized Credential” to demonstrate completion, even if the focus is music performance or art. What job-related certification do we give them for being a sculptor or a dancer or a trumpet player? This is the triumph of educational bureaucracy box-checking over actual education.

Meanwhile, we’re passing along and graduating kids who can barely read.

MCPS put entrepreneurship and marketing classes into all the arts pathways. Those are the credentials they want those kids to earn. It’s not a terrible idea but MCPS is being so shady about it. Just be honest about it. Tell families that the state is pushing for kids to get certifications and ask which ones kids might want.

[Anonymous]

Some regions seem to be missing music, like region 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

Are all 1500 of those kids capable of handling the advanced curriculum? Just because people apply doesn't mean it would be a good fit. I have one kid in a competitive program, and another kid who is applying to it this year but has no business being in it. They only applied because the common app makes it so easy. If the idea is to take care of everyone on the waitlist, then that is an interest-based program not a criteria-based program.

No idea. MCPS only shares limited information and they use numbers to advance their own agenda. But if even half of the students in the applicant pools are qualified, MCPS will still be falling short of meeting demand.

The issue with magnet programs having a spot for every student who has the interest and the ability for the curriculum is that you've then drained home schools of all of the academically strong kids. What if you don't want to do a STEM magnet because your primary interest is music or English or history, but you just want to be able to take a good Calc class? If all of your classmates who are good at math left for the STEM magnet, you won't have that. I think it's ok for these programs to be selective and choose the most qualified students, not all qualified students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is not what Jeannie Franklin told us at the Blair engagement meeting. She said definitively that these programs would NOT be like the MS magnets, and that there would be NO lottery component. Of course that doesn't mean that I believe her...

Taylor said the same thing at the BOE business meeting. Claimed every kid that’s meets the criteria would get in but then later said he was using these programs to balance school enrollment. You can’t do that unless it’s a lottery like the consortia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. According to the metric here, students will have to achieve an “Industry Recognized Credential” to demonstrate completion, even if the focus is music performance or art. What job-related certification do we give them for being a sculptor or a dancer or a trumpet player? This is the triumph of educational bureaucracy box-checking over actual education.

Meanwhile, we’re passing along and graduating kids who can barely read.

There isn’t even an audition required for these music programs! The criteria is to be a C student. What a low bar!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is not what Jeannie Franklin told us at the Blair engagement meeting. She said definitively that these programs would NOT be like the MS magnets, and that there would be NO lottery component. Of course that doesn't mean that I believe her...

Taylor said the same thing at the BOE business meeting. Claimed every kid that’s meets the criteria would get in but then later said he was using these programs to balance school enrollment. You can’t do that unless it’s a lottery like the consortia

Where did they document how these programs will balance enrollment and the assumptions they made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

Are all 1500 of those kids capable of handling the advanced curriculum? Just because people apply doesn't mean it would be a good fit. I have one kid in a competitive program, and another kid who is applying to it this year but has no business being in it. They only applied because the common app makes it so easy. If the idea is to take care of everyone on the waitlist, then that is an interest-based program not a criteria-based program.

No idea. MCPS only shares limited information and they use numbers to advance their own agenda. But if even half of the students in the applicant pools are qualified, MCPS will still be falling short of meeting demand.

The issue with magnet programs having a spot for every student who has the interest and the ability for the curriculum is that you've then drained home schools of all of the academically strong kids. What if you don't want to do a STEM magnet because your primary interest is music or English or history, but you just want to be able to take a good Calc class? If all of your classmates who are good at math left for the STEM magnet, you won't have that. I think it's ok for these programs to be selective and choose the most qualified students, not all qualified students.

+1 it's completely insane to put all the academically advanced kids in magnet programs. Magnet programs should be for gifted kids that can't be properly served by regular AP classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. According to the metric here, students will have to achieve an “Industry Recognized Credential” to demonstrate completion, even if the focus is music performance or art. What job-related certification do we give them for being a sculptor or a dancer or a trumpet player? This is the triumph of educational bureaucracy box-checking over actual education.

Meanwhile, we’re passing along and graduating kids who can barely read.

Kids need the arts and interest-based just as much. Kids learn to read in ES so your comments make no sense and we need to hold the ES accountable for the lack of reading, writing and math skills. The problem with arts programs as without additional money and staff, there is going to be nothing more than there is now and its pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious from folks who are familiar with the existing programs. MCPS has released lists of courses/etc as well as enrollment numbers proposed as these programs shift to regional. Do they look like they will be staying about the same, or are there any notable changes?

Description of classes for each program: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

Projected enrollment numbers/spaces per school each year (pages 5-13) https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLJXC4F4A19/$file/Regional%20Program%20Model%20FY2027-2031%20Budget%20251120.pdf

There are currently 350 IB seats per year. The new model will increase that to 510 seat per year. Over 2000 students per year apply to IB magnets.

There are currently 160 SMCS seats per year. The new model will increase that 510 seat per year. Over 1500 students per year apply to SMCS magnets.

So, more seats, but there will still be waitlists.

Are all 1500 of those kids capable of handling the advanced curriculum? Just because people apply doesn't mean it would be a good fit. I have one kid in a competitive program, and another kid who is applying to it this year but has no business being in it. They only applied because the common app makes it so easy. If the idea is to take care of everyone on the waitlist, then that is an interest-based program not a criteria-based program.

No idea. MCPS only shares limited information and they use numbers to advance their own agenda. But if even half of the students in the applicant pools are qualified, MCPS will still be falling short of meeting demand.

The issue with magnet programs having a spot for every student who has the interest and the ability for the curriculum is that you've then drained home schools of all of the academically strong kids. What if you don't want to do a STEM magnet because your primary interest is music or English or history, but you just want to be able to take a good Calc class? If all of your classmates who are good at math left for the STEM magnet, you won't have that. I think it's ok for these programs to be selective and choose the most qualified students, not all qualified students.

+1 it's completely insane to put all the academically advanced kids in magnet programs. Magnet programs should be for gifted kids that can't be properly served by regular AP classes.

That only works IF you have all schools having a large amount of AP classes which they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. According to the metric here, students will have to achieve an “Industry Recognized Credential” to demonstrate completion, even if the focus is music performance or art. What job-related certification do we give them for being a sculptor or a dancer or a trumpet player? This is the triumph of educational bureaucracy box-checking over actual education.

Meanwhile, we’re passing along and graduating kids who can barely read.

There isn’t even an audition required for these music programs! The criteria is to be a C student. What a low bar!

There is no extra funding so they aren't real music programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair SMCS parent here. The math is one-year behind the current one. They remove completely the engineering courses which should span the first two years. CSP in 10th grade? That's a suicidal move for any STEM student.

The internship between 11th and 12th grade summer is laughable, as current students all apply by themselves and there is no organized pathway to guarantee any research internship. Same thing for "national and international STEM competitions". If they are talking about AMC, ARML, F=ma those types of competitions, those are pretty much organized by a single teacher across the entire MCPS currently. And expecting him to expand the access to 3X is ridiculous. All other competition opportunities (e.g., Hackathon, science bowl) are organized by student-led clubs and among peers (and parents need to resolve the logistics). School doesn't organize any of these opportunities other than give students an excused absence approval.

Which grade is your kid in? And what are the courses they took/need to take per grade as per the current program schedule?

I don't know what courses an advanced kid should be taking, so pardon my ignorance - why is taking CSP in 10th grade a suicidal move for a STEM student?

I also have know idea why taking AP CSP in 10th grade would be a suicidal move for a STEM student since that is exactly when lots of them take it. Some do take it in 9th to fulfill the tech credit. Especially those that are technology focused.

Its normal to take AP CSP in 10th, AP Java in 11th.