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:Folks need to get really clear and explicit on what exactly you are worried about losing by these magnets becoming regional. What are the specific classes that there wouldn't be enough kids to support regional programs? Is it just a few high level math and science classes for a couple dozen seniors, or is there anything else?

(If your complaint is just that they shouldn't change because you don't want your kid in class with a 95th percentile kid, you're not gonna get any sympathy or success. You need to spell out "kids will lose access to X and Y.")

DD went to Blair Magnet.

1. Advanced core math courses: functions, analysis 1 (calculus), analysis 2 (multivariable calculus, differential equations). They are incredibly fast-paced and rigorous. You would not be able to implement this with a regional program due to: lack of skilled teachers, inequitable implementation, lack of qualified students in some areas.
2. Unique electives: quantum mechanics, AI, neuroscience, biochemistry, math physics, genetic analysis.... MCPS would not be able to implement this into a regional model. They would all disappear or be a shell of what they used to be.
3. Student body. The Blair magnet takes the top from the county and are all incredibly talented. They are all very passionate in STEM, and their community helps to motivate everyone. They start clubs, do competitions together, and organize STEM activities together. They have an incredibly strong club culture.
4. Competitions: I mentioned that Blair takes the strongest from the county. I heard they recently won the National Science Bowl. They have a quizbowl team, science olympiad team, robotics team, and many more. They compete nationally. Blair offers them a very unique, once in a lifetime opportunity. Not possible if everything is divided.
5. Activities: Blair magnet students organize unique activities all the time. Their math tournament for middle students get 300+ participants each year and is highly successful. Their clubs do community outreach and volunteer. They organize plenty of other opportunities for other students all the time. The scale of these activities is incredibly unique to the magnet.
6. Research: The magnet has a senior research opportunity. The summer before senior year, each student interns in a lab at a university. They are able to write papers and present them to the entire program. Many are recognized for national awards.

I could go on and on. Ideally, I think many students could benefit from this program. But, expansion would mean a lack of resources and would bring everything down equally. Many of the very top students also need a challenge outside of their regular school curriculum, and this program provides exactly that.

But why should MCPS/taxpayers concentrate so many resources for such a small number of kids? It really does not make sense.

Why should MCPS pay for special needs programs? FARMS? ESOL? Therapists? These cost exorbitant amounts of taxpayer dollars, too. I do not benefit from all of these programs. And yet, I continue to support them. Why? Because every student deserves an education that fits their needs.

Students who happen to be talented in academics also deserve a quality education as well. If the regular school curriculumn isn't enough, MCPS should provide opportunities for them. And thus, the magnets.

Or just send them to college classes.

I did that in my flyover country high school when I ran out of math courses to take.

Please read upstream page 2. College classes may offer more than regular high school classes, but they do not even compare to some of the magnets, like Blair.

So now Blair is…better than UMD?

No, but dual enrollment is via Montgomery College, not UMD.

I understand that but if MC doesn’t offer the course then UMD would. Which presumably MCPS could provide for in some fashion.

UMD is a transportation and logistical issue and who pays for it? The discussion is more about the lower income schools which don't have equal classes to the W schools. So, that's an unfair burden to families.

It's funny that many, many people on DCUM have been told to just home school when they expect something not currently offered by their own high school. And they are expected to pay for all transportation and work out logistics. They do not even receive free tuition at MC like ALL OTHER Maryland students, but have to pay for the classes themselves. At a certain point, MCPS needs to maximize the benefit to the largest number of students. The regional proposal will create several programs in each region and put at least one program closer to everyone's home. If that still doesn't work for you, you will have to adjust your expectations or home school.

Kids shouldn't have to be sent to college to get their needs met. Transportation is a huge issue for many of us. If the W schools can have the advanced classes, why can't all schools. I would gladly pay for a class but understand kids who are in activities, sports and work after school cannot take afternoon and evening classes. Its not even a fair ask.

If we could homeschool for the one class, we would. I asked MCPS if we could do an independent study with a tutor and they said no. Many of us are trying to think outside the box to meet our kids needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DE is not possible for a lot of kids. MCPS needs to provide it directly to students. They have been clear they will not offer classes virtually.

MCPS is about equity. They should just cut it from all schools. It’s not ok some schools offer way more than others. If lower income families need to figure it out, so should higher income families especially when they have the resources.

They have not been clear. At the meeting on Thursday, there was mention of virtual classes as possibilities.

It should be a possibility if they’re smart. Posters here are screaming about the tragedy of 20 extremely bright kids being unable to access a math class that only one MCPS teacher is qualified to teach. Other states offer distance education with a qualified teacher as an option. That would be Better than using those 20 kids as an excuse to deny opportunities to hundreds more who could benefit from enriched programming. Not to mention being better for kids who won’t have to be bused an hour in each direction on top of an already crushing schedule

We have several qualified teachers at our school. Where are you getting only one teacher can teach it? They will

They may have mentioned it but I talked to them about it and they said no. They took away the vitual school and they have been clear to families its not coming back. That is the obvious solution.

Yes, MVA is not coming back. That is, however, almost completely irrelevant to the question "will they offer some classes virtually for kids at schools without enough demand to run a full class locally?" to which the answer seems like it is likely to be yes. Please don't mix up these two things and spread misinformation.

[Anonymous]

I would imagine very few public school students gets all of their needs met, particularly when those needs are highly specialized. Most of us have learned to live with that and tried to figure out alternatives for our kids or have accepted the lack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

CES attempts to take top kids in each region. Regional magnets will try to do the same. I am not arguing that same set of kids will get into both. I am arguing that if enough demands can exist for CES then no reason to think that enough demand won't exist for regional magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

I mean, most of the regional IB programs aren't particularly selective and mostly serve a lot of kids who are zoned to that school anyway, right? It might just be a sign there's lower demand for IB itself (the fact that lots of people want to go to RMIB doesn't change that.). And then if the student populations are very different, outcomes will be different too-- for example, even if the quality of the teachers was exactly the same at RM and Kennedy, if one school is a highly selective countywide program and the other is made up of largely in-bounds Kennedy kids, the outcomes would likely be wildly different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

Ask yourself or your kid: would you like to not take any AP courses, and studying the AP materials on your personal time for AP tests? This is the situation for SMACS and RMIB. in Blair SMACS, none of the magnet courses are designed for AP tests. They at most cover half of the AP materials, but go very deep on every subject. The current students take these courses, go really deep into one subject, which helps them advance in competitions or research, and build a solid foundation for college and graduate schools. Meanwhile, in order to look competitive on paper, they spend their personal times on self-learning and pass at least a dozen of AP tests with 4 or 5. In RMIB, everyone takes IB courses but take both IB and AP tests. Ask yourself if enough students will be self-driven to this extent once they becomes 6 regional programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DE is not possible for a lot of kids. MCPS needs to provide it directly to students. They have been clear they will not offer classes virtually.

MCPS is about equity. They should just cut it from all schools. It’s not ok some schools offer way more than others. If lower income families need to figure it out, so should higher income families especially when they have the resources.

Are you not paying attention, that is literally what many are advocating for. Offer MvC for a very specific magnet program and if not that don’t offer it at all. Let MC and other colleges offer it. Then those resources can be utilized to offer a wider range of classes that more students need.

MCPS is not responsible for providing every class for every possible student interest. Providing access and opportunity to MC or other colleges either in person or virtually is fine.

You, also, have not paid attention. There are two different things, here. One is the current SMCS magnet, with several classes far beyond the APs. This covers progressively fewer of even those in the split-countywide magnets as they approach senior year, and that is among the reasons to be concerned about dilution of the very strongest across the county if the magnet was regionalized without a hybrid solution. The other is about equity across non-magnet schools.

With MCPS's current standard acceleration, there are many, many students taking Calc in junior year. Some of those, but still many, will (and should) be taking the BC version directly (not slowing down with a year of AB and then re-covering content with a year of BC in senior year). For those likely to pursue STEM majors, some, but still many, should immediately follow Calc BC in junior year with Multivariable Calc in senior year, as that progression preserves important concept continuity.

That is the thing that should, then, be available at all schools. In person, as the student member of the board noted, as virtual and dual enrollment don't provide a reasonably equivalent experience.

And it only will be more the case as the new state-mandated 2-year Integrated Algebra sequence replaces the 3-year Algebra 1/Geometry/Algebra 2 sequence currently employed. Then there is likely to be a need for such an advanced course for even more students, as everyone essentially completes the overall sequence a year earlier.

You could argue that the interests of less than 100 magnet students in accessing Complex Analysis and Differential Geometry (not all current magnet students take these) should be set aside in the interests of making lesser magnet programming (still considerably above that offered at local schools) available to many more via regionalization of the magnets. I might disagree, favoring some kind of hybrid, perhaps, but you certainly could argue that.

However, we shouldn't be conflating that directly with a suggestion that we shouldn't be providing MVC locally, at all schools, for several hundred (possibly more, and very likely to eclipse any regional magnet seating available) who would need it for the reasons mentioned above. Leaving the status quo of MVC-for-me-but-not-for-thee based on the self-reinforcing prejudice of low expectations related to local demographics is inequitable on its face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

No one is arguing against expanding magnet seats. The real concern is with this regional model, which many feel isn’t set up for success. Instead of addressing those concerns, you’re dismissing them and so focused on equity that you’re overlooking whether this approach actually delivers on the promise of excellence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

No one is arguing against expanding magnet seats. The real concern is with this regional model, which many feel isn’t set up for success. Instead of addressing those concerns, you’re dismissing them and so focused on equity that you’re overlooking whether this approach actually delivers on the promise of excellence.

There are definitely people on this thread arguing against expanding magnet seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

No one is arguing against expanding magnet seats. The real concern is with this regional model, which many feel isn’t set up for success. Instead of addressing those concerns, you’re dismissing them and so focused on equity that you’re overlooking whether this approach actually delivers on the promise of excellence.

There are definitely people on this thread arguing against expanding magnet seats.

These are the people who want regional model so they argue against expanding current magnet program seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

Ask yourself or your kid: would you like to not take any AP courses, and studying the AP materials on your personal time for AP tests? This is the situation for SMACS and RMIB. in Blair SMACS, none of the magnet courses are designed for AP tests. They at most cover half of the AP materials, but go very deep on every subject. The current students take these courses, go really deep into one subject, which helps them advance in competitions or research, and build a solid foundation for college and graduate schools. Meanwhile, in order to look competitive on paper, they spend their personal times on self-learning and pass at least a dozen of AP tests with 4 or 5. In RMIB, everyone takes IB courses but take both IB and AP tests. Ask yourself if enough students will be self-driven to this extent once they becomes 6 regional programs.

May be or may be not. I don't know that. What I know for sure is that if cost of keeping the status quo is denying stronger education to thousands of kids then I am not in support of status quo. Some one posted earlier having 2 kids in 99 percentile in ES and now in MS ,who never got chance to attend any magnet. Families like that will take regional magnet any day.

For every kid taking function in Blair, 100 kids are denied oppurtunity. Around 20 kids are taking functions and thier need is not greater than 1000s of kids not able to access strong programs. Regional magnet will allow those kids to take stonger programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

No one is arguing against expanding magnet seats. The real concern is with this regional model, which many feel isn’t set up for success. Instead of addressing those concerns, you’re dismissing them and so focused on equity that you’re overlooking whether this approach actually delivers on the promise of excellence.

Expanding seats which is far away for kids is not a solution. Regional magnets will provide stornger program closer to home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

I think the regional idea of expanding seats comes from a good place. But I think in order to do it properly, they need to engage with the community MUCH more in order to understand what drives the decision making of families. The brief out of context survey didn’t get at any of these considerations.

Take me for example. I’m zoned for BCC. We bought in this zone because of a commute in to DC. In two of four options, I will be rezoned to WJ, which is 20 mins away. If I’m in WJ, my region includes Woodward, Wheaton, and Churchill for programs. My kid isn’t a math/science lover, but if she were, we would have considered a top program like Blair, which is in the right direction and not too far. Churchill is like 30 minutes away in the wrong direction. All of these schools in my potential are farther away than BCC or some of the existing magnets. And if admissions criteria are lowered due to so many new spots and programs and teachers are new and untested, a kid in my household probably wouldn’t apply because it doesn’t seem worth it. So any application data DCCAPS thinks they have from past cycles might not be useful or applicable.

Exactly. 700–800 applications to Blair doesn’t translate to the same number for six separate regional programs. Many families will likely be hesitant to apply to new, untested programs. Instead of a major overhaul, MCPS should consider starting with just one additional program to gauge interest and effectiveness before expanding further.

On the other hand, more families may apply that wouldn't have before because they live too far away from Blair or Poolesvile.

MCPS should conduct a thorough and transparent survey before moving forward. There doesn’t appear to be sufficient data to justify launching six regional programs. The current plan feels rushed and lacks clarity in both process and rationale.

How big is fairfax county and how many seats are in TJ?

I would say without doing any survey, comparable number of students will exist in MCPS as with simialr ration.

Centralized program and fragmented programs will have different demands. Why are you advocating decisions based on insufficient data?

CES is fragmented program with strong demand. I am all for survey or whatever helps, but simply providing a quick short cut to see how many kids can benefit from magnet programs. Ratio of bright kids will remain same.

CES is for young elementary students which are quite different from high school magnet. It’s also hard to measure success for such young age. A better example is the regional IB model, which shows how dispersing the same programs across multiple regions leads to inconsistent quality, diluted resources, and inequitable outcomes.

Regional IBs were not done with any thoughts about equity or equal outcome. With 4-5 schools sharing one magnet, we will get plenty of bright kids attending them. If all regions have similar program with same number of kids then it is as equal as we can get. Anyway, equal oppurtunities can be ensured and not equal outcome. Lert's focus on providing equal oppurtunities to all kids. Regional magnets is the way to go.

I am hearing all kind of excuses about why magnet seats shouldn't be expanded which is easy to get to. Regional magnets is a good idea. I don't even get the rational for thiking that there won't be a demand for this.

Ask yourself or your kid: would you like to not take any AP courses, and studying the AP materials on your personal time for AP tests? This is the situation for SMACS and RMIB. in Blair SMACS, none of the magnet courses are designed for AP tests. They at most cover half of the AP materials, but go very deep on every subject. The current students take these courses, go really deep into one subject, which helps them advance in competitions or research, and build a solid foundation for college and graduate schools. Meanwhile, in order to look competitive on paper, they spend their personal times on self-learning and pass at least a dozen of AP tests with 4 or 5. In RMIB, everyone takes IB courses but take both IB and AP tests. Ask yourself if enough students will be self-driven to this extent once they becomes 6 regional programs.

May be or may be not. I don't know that. What I know for sure is that if cost of keeping the status quo is denying stronger education to thousands of kids then I am not in support of status quo. Some one posted earlier having 2 kids in 99 percentile in ES and now in MS ,who never got chance to attend any magnet. Families like that will take regional magnet any day.

For every kid taking function in Blair, 100 kids are denied oppurtunity. Around 20 kids are taking functions and thier need is not greater than 1000s of kids not able to access strong programs. Regional magnet will allow those kids to take stonger programs.

I’m a parent of two children who have never won a spot through the lottery system for elementary or middle school magnets. I want to see that lottery process go away, because if admission were truly based on merit, they would have had a fair shot.

Now, dismantling countywide programs threatens to take away their high school magnet opportunity as well. Instead of replacing proven programs with untested new ones, we should be expanding seats in the successful existing magnets. I’m not willing to gamble my children’s education on being guinea pigs for a model that hasn’t been shown to work.