Please sign this petition to continue countywide magnets

[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:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

"Regardless how you achieved" is the nameable part. People with more resources for Khan academy, RSM and help from parents will almost always out achieve those that don't.

khan is free. it's not about resources, it's about the kids. i have a kid who is very self-driven, constantly learning new things, they used to be on khan all the time... not because i pushed them but because they wanted to. i have 2 more kids and they are not like that. the access it the same, the results aren't.

Like I replied previously, there's always an excuse to not learn beyond what's taught in school, and they attribute that to "inequity" instead of "lack of self-motivation". Don't argue with those folks. Life is filled with challenge and criteria-based selection. They will just whine and fail in landing a good job offer, or realize eventually that it's their own issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

"Prize?" How is it that that word is used in the one case and "earned" in the other. Would it not equivalently be a prize for those demonstrating proficiency?

Why is "ambition" entering into the characterization of those currently admitted, but not that of those "blessed with greater innate abilities?" Do those who might not demonstrate proficiency despite ability necessarily fail to do so because of a lack of ambition?

It is true that not all students come to the magnet table with the same level of knowledge having been acquired. However, programs can, and have, as mentioned repeatedly by program staff themselves, worked with students to ensure that they catch up during a program's early stages.

By law, the system is supposed to be identifying gifted students and providing them with education that addresses the associated need. To the extent that such students are denied access due to a combination of limitations on program seats and a resulting preparations race in which not all can compete equitably, the system fails.

Yes. They have to rethink their admissions criteria where such gameability can be reduced. And they should be expanding so that all who likely would benefit have the opportunity to do so. As to whether they also should change the most highly selective current programs, themselves, I'd revert to the earlier sentiment -- if they can serve the proper purpose, why?

This is the debate that takes place on this board routinely. Some people think any student who meets minimum criteria should be able to enroll in a special program. Other people think only the students who have demonstrated the highest levels of proficiency and consistency belong in a program. Then people point out that there’s no significant difference in proficiency between a 98th% scorer and a 97th% scorer. Then other people say that anyone who gets extra enrichment outside of school is “gaming the system” — a system specifically designed to reward those who know more content. Other people chime in that their kids are fully qualified for these programs, but the magnet schools are so far from where they live that they won’t even consider the magnets because of the commute. Meanwhile, still other families are taking magnet programs into consideration in all the choices they make, such as where to live and which extracurricular activities they choose for their kids.

MCPS isn’t testing 8th graders for giftedness. These programs aren’t designed specifically for the gifted population. They are designed for the kids who know the most content, will consistently outperform almost all of their peers on grades and test scores, and are committed to prioritizing academic challenges over other interests. That’s what I mean by ambition. Attracting students who are bright and have potential, but want to have a reasonable commute, participate in athletics at a high level, get an adequate amount of sleep, have a flourishing social life, and stay with their home school friends has not been MCPS’s goal for magnet programs. People complain about equity when kids who have benefited from extracurricular math enrichment get into SMCS, but SMCS isn’t a program for kids who aren’t hungry to do any math outside of the typical course load.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

There is points in all of this that is valid. In the point of maturity though, I would note that it’s known that gifted kids often have differing social emotional needs. It is known that these are often ignored or not seen to nearly as much as the academic side. This is actually detrimental for these kids long term. There are reasons gifted education is actually under Special Education.

[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:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

There is points in all of this that is valid. In the point of maturity though, I would note that it’s known that gifted kids often have differing social emotional needs. It is known that these are often ignored or not seen to nearly as much as the academic side. This is actually detrimental for these kids long term. There are reasons gifted education is actually under Special Education.

Um...it isn't under Special Education.

The Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, which handles the central guidance to schools regarding G/T, is under the Division of Teaching and Learning. That, basically, was the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs before, with some rejiggering/elevation from FY25 to this year, and has Curriculum, Academic Programs, DCCAPS (conducts the lotteries), the Blueprint office, College & Career Readiness and Multilingual Ed, too.

Special Ed, which used to be a parallel to OCIP under the Chief Academic Officer, now has been moved to a separate division -- Specialized Support Services, which also holds counseling, well-being & attendance.

[Anonymous]

I have not read this whole thread but I have a child who would be a great fit for one of the middle school magnets but the commute would absolutely kill any downtime they might have. But our home school is not good and has no real accelerated classes aside from Math. The whole idea of these limited programs being available ONLY BY LOTTERY and only for kids who can manage the commute is insane. Every single school should have an actual advanced program and if we are going to do magnets there should be a magnet within a reasonable radius for every kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread but I have a child who would be a great fit for one of the middle school magnets but the commute would absolutely kill any downtime they might have. But our home school is not good and has no real accelerated classes aside from Math. The whole idea of these limited programs being available ONLY BY LOTTERY and only for kids who can manage the commute is insane. Every single school should have an actual advanced program and if we are going to do magnets there should be a magnet within a reasonable radius for every kid.

I guess the question is, are people saying they want an actual magnet program or do they want a good school?

I know it's not a popular opinion nowadays but schools was a major factor on where we decided to move to. If schools weren't a factor, we would've been open to a lot more areas.

Yes, the area we picked is more expensive and on the wealthier side.

So my point of view is that the magnet program is a really specialized program for the really elite few. You see the kind of things those students are showcasing at local events and it's really a different breed. We would've liked for our kids to go to those special programs. But prior to all the changes going on or proposed, we are fully okay with the local schools we're currently zoned for.

Are people asking for more access to the actual current magnet programs and what it offers. Or are people asking for better schools where their kids would have access to the more higher level and rigorous classes? ie in the groups we are in, not just in MCPS but in surrounding school systems, taking Calculus by 10th grade is very normal and there is the full expectation that the local high schools have what the students need/want for grades 11 and 12.

I'm not saying that there should be a high price of entry for "good" schools. But I'm questioning if people are really asking for magnet programs or if they're asking for better schools.

[Anonymous]

SMCS isn’t billed as a G&T program. MCPS merely references SMCS students as “highly motivated and able,” as determined by MAP-M scores, grades, and their application for the program. The selection criteria for the various different magnet programs at Poolesville include “a student's achievement record in mathematics, social studies, science, and English, demonstrated interest in mathematics, science, social studies and computer science.” I’m not sure how students are expected to demonstrate their interest.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/poolesvillehs/magnet/smcs/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18ovH1xt873E-0-dqjWCz00koPlHeACK6YwyekZ9zngQ/preview?tab=t.0

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/poolesvillehs/magnet/application/#selection

[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:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

There is points in all of this that is valid. In the point of maturity though, I would note that it’s known that gifted kids often have differing social emotional needs. It is known that these are often ignored or not seen to nearly as much as the academic side. This is actually detrimental for these kids long term. There are reasons gifted education is actually under Special Education.

Um...it isn't under Special Education.

The Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, which handles the central guidance to schools regarding G/T, is under the Division of Teaching and Learning. That, basically, was the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs before, with some rejiggering/elevation from FY25 to this year, and has Curriculum, Academic Programs, DCCAPS (conducts the lotteries), the Blueprint office, College & Career Readiness and Multilingual Ed, too.

Special Ed, which used to be a parallel to OCIP under the Chief Academic Officer, now has been moved to a separate division -- Specialized Support Services, which also holds counseling, well-being & attendance.

That is an office setup mostly to organizational structure and to align with IDEA of federal law. However Gifted Education is often considered a subset of Special Education and in many states resides in that department.

Maryland law requires that schools provide services for gifted students. And the OAEI office provides training specific to working with and acknowledging gifted students. Counselors and Psychologists recognize they often have differing social emotional needs.

Special Education essentially means specialized instruction and services that is different from the general/standard, whether provided individually or in group. So by all measures gifted education and services are in fact Special Education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

If you want it small, don't expect others to support them staying open to serve a few hundred kids when our kids at other schools don't have access to the classes they need, and it's a huge burden to have us figure it out. At a minimum MCPS should provide transportation to other schools for advanced classes but they will not do that except if they choose to offer the class at another school. We have to fight for our own kids' needs and spend many hours making it work while you sit back and got the easy way.

[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:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

There is points in all of this that is valid. In the point of maturity though, I would note that it’s known that gifted kids often have differing social emotional needs. It is known that these are often ignored or not seen to nearly as much as the academic side. This is actually detrimental for these kids long term. There are reasons gifted education is actually under Special Education.

Um...it isn't under Special Education.

The Office of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction, which handles the central guidance to schools regarding G/T, is under the Division of Teaching and Learning. That, basically, was the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs before, with some rejiggering/elevation from FY25 to this year, and has Curriculum, Academic Programs, DCCAPS (conducts the lotteries), the Blueprint office, College & Career Readiness and Multilingual Ed, too.

Special Ed, which used to be a parallel to OCIP under the Chief Academic Officer, now has been moved to a separate division -- Specialized Support Services, which also holds counseling, well-being & attendance.

That is an office setup mostly to organizational structure and to align with IDEA of federal law. However Gifted Education is often considered a subset of Special Education and in many states resides in that department.

Maryland law requires that schools provide services for gifted students. And the OAEI office provides training specific to working with and acknowledging gifted students. Counselors and Psychologists recognize they often have differing social emotional needs.

Special Education essentially means specialized instruction and services that is different from the general/standard, whether provided individually or in group. So by all measures gifted education and services are in fact Special Education.

IDEA means nothing with special education or gifted or if your kid is both. We got denied an IEP as our kid was smart and in what they considered advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread but I have a child who would be a great fit for one of the middle school magnets but the commute would absolutely kill any downtime they might have. But our home school is not good and has no real accelerated classes aside from Math. The whole idea of these limited programs being available ONLY BY LOTTERY and only for kids who can manage the commute is insane. Every single school should have an actual advanced program and if we are going to do magnets there should be a magnet within a reasonable radius for every kid.

I guess the question is, are people saying they want an actual magnet program or do they want a good school?

I know it's not a popular opinion nowadays but schools was a major factor on where we decided to move to. If schools weren't a factor, we would've been open to a lot more areas.

Yes, the area we picked is more expensive and on the wealthier side.

So my point of view is that the magnet program is a really specialized program for the really elite few. You see the kind of things those students are showcasing at local events and it's really a different breed. We would've liked for our kids to go to those special programs. But prior to all the changes going on or proposed, we are fully okay with the local schools we're currently zoned for.

Are people asking for more access to the actual current magnet programs and what it offers. Or are people asking for better schools where their kids would have access to the more higher level and rigorous classes? ie in the groups we are in, not just in MCPS but in surrounding school systems, taking Calculus by 10th grade is very normal and there is the full expectation that the local high schools have what the students need/want for grades 11 and 12.

I'm not saying that there should be a high price of entry for "good" schools. But I'm questioning if people are really asking for magnet programs or if they're asking for better schools.

This is an astute point and may explain why MCPS is splitting the baby in half, so to speak, by replacing the current highly rigorous magnet programs with specialized programs located across many more schools offering more seats, but with intentionally decreased rigor in every single humanities program and possible decreased rigor in STEM programs.

[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:What’s frustrating here is the continued push to close the existing flagship magnets under the guise of equity. There’s no need to shut them down in order to open more programs. Someone said the county is closing the magnets to open even more and that's a good thing. The county has already tried expanding access through regional IB programs, compacted math, and ELC. The reality? Very few students enrolled, and many struggled to handle the rigor — in fact, the ELC program had to be discontinued because there simply weren’t enough students prepared for it. Secondly, look at non criteria based watered down lottery magnets or elementary and middle schools. They already are a shadow of what they were with watered down rigor and students opting not to go to them.

The flagship high school magnets work because they bring together a critical mass of the most advanced students. Now, by spreading these kids across six “regional magnets” — you’re inevitably diluting the rigor of the curriculum. That’s not “privilege”; that’s simple logic. To pretend otherwise is just wrong.

And let’s be honest: if these regional magnets move forward as planned, one of two things will happen — either many families won’t choose them, or the courses offered will no longer resemble true magnet-level academics. This will only accelerate the decline of challenging, high-level programs for the students who need them most.

What’s happening here isn’t about serving all students. It’s about optics — allowing MCPS leadership to showcase their “DEI credentials” to the people who put them in, while undermining the very programs that consistently deliver academic excellence.

Yeah thinking about it, I'm not entirely against the programs they're proposing.

But it shouldn't be broken down into six distinct regions with schools segregated from each other.

What they should be doing is seeing is maybe push out a single maybe two schools with the programs. Kind of like how the county is split between Poolesville and Blair.

Then if there is strong demand for a program, then they open it at another school and can split the areas of the county to go to which school.

Same thing with the current countywide magnet program. So there's not enough seats for everyone that wants one. They can open a third one and split the county into thirds. With the bigger areas, there should ideally be wider range in demographics and backgrounds. They can also make transportation easier for people that are interested in the programs.

Or if it's really just an equity issue, then they can rank students from more of the underrepresented schools a little bit more or guarantee a certain amount of seats for them.

For the magnet program though, the issue really starts prior to high school. I imagine a good portion of students that go to magnet programs were enrolled either at the Eastern or Takoma Park programs. Or at some gifted program in ES. By the time these students start looking at high school, they'll already be at different levels compared to others. So it seems like they should be starting on the other side at the earlier years. Making sure students have a strong foundation, give students access to advanced tracks if it suits them, etc.

I'm kind of more open to the idea of the other programs, other than magnet. But as mentioned I don't think they need six separate areas with their own offerings within their areas. Unless the demand really does show it's big enough where they need to divide the county into six regions.

If the demand was big enough, MCPS would have released that data to bolster its position on the regional programming.

They did release the data…if over 1,000 kids apply to 60 seats at PHS, doesn’t that show demand??

It goes back to what the other poster posted. 1000 applied. But how many actually qualified?

We're not at the high school level yet. So don't know how it works. But we have plenty of kids at our kids' school that qualified for the lottery but didn't get selected. That might show there is a demand for more seats.

But that's different if someone qualified but didn't meet the requirements.

I meant to say if someone applied but didn't meet the requirements.

You ask how many applied. They say my smart kids are not interested to apply.
You ask how many are qualified. They say my smart kids are smart but they are just not good at testing or happen to have a bad day in MAP testing.
You ask what criteria to use. They say you can prep MAP. You can prep CoGAT. You can prep for whatever metrics to use. So you cheat if you got in.
You ask why the majority came from a few HSs. They say, oh, my kids declined/not applied because of the long commute, or later dismissal time is conflicting with their ECs.

They can never recognize or admit that success can never be achieved without consistent self-motivation. There's a will, there's a way. Those students attended and survived these countywide programs because they are willing to challenge themselves and to make a better self, at the sacrifice of longer commute, longer school time, much more homework, away from their local friends, etc.

You're barking up the wrong tree here.

I'm a firm believer that magnet programs should have certain thresholds.

If they want to expand it to the 95 percent instead of 99 that's another thing.(which I'm not in disagreement with)

But either way they need to have a firm line on what the criteria is.

For students that are in the 94th percentile, then MCPS will need to make sure whatever is at their current school has what they need. Or give them access to it.

It's like other poster said, sure if kids are smart but don't test well, then the question is if they really have the discipline to succeed in the program.

And the people that do choose to do the commute are willing to do so for what's offered by the program. Those that aren't willing to, don't really want to. We know people that drive across the county to send their kids to the Parkland and Argyle programs and it's not easy on them.

The magnet programs are not supposed to be for everyone, like the honors for all system.

So if 1000 students met the criteria but there are only 60 seats, then there does need to be a consideration for more seats.

But anyone can send an application in or say they're interested. The question is if they're qualified.

But MCPS needs to improve the offerings at their current schools.

The rub is that the important thing is to make sure that the program succeeds in supporting MCPS's smart kids. (Or, broadly, to ensure the set of enriched/accelerated/GT offerings, locally and by magnet, adequately provides that support.)

MCPS doesn't succeed if the program is not of sufficient caliber to meet that academic need.

But it also doesn't succeed if the seats are too few in comparison to the highly able student population.

It doesn't succeed if the distances are so great as to make reasonable access across the county infeasible.

It doesn't succeed if there are "solutions" that amount to "separate but 'equal'" (e.g., in person for me but schlep to Montgomery College for thee).

It doesn't succeed if the identification paradigm is more gameable, limiting access to those of high ability, including those with few resources outside of school and those whose schools' resources have to be used to address the needs of more difficult populations at the expense of supporting populations with that ability, in favor of those highly prepared (understanding that a Venn diagram would show considerable overlap between ability and preparation).

And it doesn't succeed if it designs programs that rely on some unusual level of extant student discipline, rather than having in-program mechanisms to build the discipline that would improve program outcomes for any of the highly able.

There are many actions MCPS might take to address the needs of the GT student population. Regionalized magnets can be part of that if they adequately address the issues above (and probably several others I've failed to mention).

Should the RMIB and SMCS magnets largely remain as is? If they can support MCPS's overall success in addressing the needs of highly able learners as described above, why not?

Mathematics is a subject where you have to master easier concepts in order to be capable of learning more complicated concepts. No matter how high your IQ, if there’s a deficit in your body of knowledge, you can’t necessarily move on to more advanced lessons. For that reason, I’m not sure programs like SMCS are truly designed for the smartest students. I think they’re actually designed for the most academically accelerated and ambitious STEM students. Does it matter how they became the most academically accelerated? If admissions is based on demonstrated knowledge, is anyone “gaming” the system by knowing more content?

There’s this rift between people who think these programs are a prize for those who have been blessed with greater innate abilities versus people who think admission to these programs is earned by demonstrating greater proficiency in a subject regardless of how you achieved that proficiency. MCPS has been admitting students to SMCS on the basis of proficiency and ambition, not innate ability. If they want to change that paradigm in the name of equity, they have to completely rethink their admissions criteria.

I kind of see your point.

But how are they supposed to measure and identify the smart kids? And it's not just being smart but they have to be able to succeed in the program as well.

I think it's a lot like sports.

There are a lot of athletes that have that natural ability but are missing that mentality, drive or discipline that prevents them from making it to the next level.

These athletes often get to a certain point where they'll get surpassed by the players who are willing to put in the work and have the discipline. It might be even be just a matter of being able to stay academically eligible.

I've come across many people who might be geniuses but for whatever reason they didn't go down the academic route.

With math problems, it's not enough if kids know the answer and they can't just write the answer and move on. I hear a lot of parents complain this being an issue that their smart kids do. Teachers want to actually see the work and thought that helped them arrive to the answers. (I guess it's rough for any students where the answer just comes into their head and they can't explain it) But students aren't going to be given credit if they can't do that.

Also with the common, "My kid is so smart but doesn't do well or focus in class because it's not challenging to them" Teachers and schools aren't going to advance students just because their parents say they're smart. They need to see the students actually are capable of doing the current level work and it is too easy for them. This would be measured by test scores and grades. If students can't buckle down and do that, it points to a maturity issue and maybe they shouldn't be advanced until they gain that maturity.

With the way things currently are, even if students are naturally gifted or smart they still need to learn to work within the system if they want to be identified as such and be eligible for any special programs.

But like you said, maybe it's just a matter of MCPS changing their admissions criteria and how they identify the students.

If you want it small, don't expect others to support them staying open to serve a few hundred kids when our kids at other schools don't have access to the classes they need, and it's a huge burden to have us figure it out. At a minimum MCPS should provide transportation to other schools for advanced classes but they will not do that except if they choose to offer the class at another school. We have to fight for our own kids' needs and spend many hours making it work while you sit back and got the easy way.

Parents shouldn’t feel like they’re pitted against each other. We all want MCPS to meet all students’ needs. Some of us want to expand access to rigor without robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read this whole thread but I have a child who would be a great fit for one of the middle school magnets but the commute would absolutely kill any downtime they might have. But our home school is not good and has no real accelerated classes aside from Math. The whole idea of these limited programs being available ONLY BY LOTTERY and only for kids who can manage the commute is insane. Every single school should have an actual advanced program and if we are going to do magnets there should be a magnet within a reasonable radius for every kid.

I guess the question is, are people saying they want an actual magnet program or do they want a good school?

I know it's not a popular opinion nowadays but schools was a major factor on where we decided to move to. If schools weren't a factor, we would've been open to a lot more areas.

Yes, the area we picked is more expensive and on the wealthier side.

So my point of view is that the magnet program is a really specialized program for the really elite few. You see the kind of things those students are showcasing at local events and it's really a different breed. We would've liked for our kids to go to those special programs. But prior to all the changes going on or proposed, we are fully okay with the local schools we're currently zoned for.

Are people asking for more access to the actual current magnet programs and what it offers. Or are people asking for better schools where their kids would have access to the more higher level and rigorous classes? ie in the groups we are in, not just in MCPS but in surrounding school systems, taking Calculus by 10th grade is very normal and there is the full expectation that the local high schools have what the students need/want for grades 11 and 12.

I'm not saying that there should be a high price of entry for "good" schools. But I'm questioning if people are really asking for magnet programs or if they're asking for better schools.

People are asking for both.

It’s a well known fact that some schools and cluster lack the more advance and specialized classes and programs. There is a sense of lower expectations because there are more EML students or less vocal parents. However evidence has shown that when provide the challenge students will rise to it. It’s also been proven in MCPS own data that the EML students are completely capable of performing at proficient or above levels once they exit the English learning program.

Taking Calculus by 10th grade is not that normal. It’s very accelerated and most college professors think it’s overkill and kids are not getting good foundations. Calculus by 12th is the goal (and technically that accelerated). Calculus by 11th is supposed to be the highly accelerated. Calculus by 10th, and now people are wondering why is everyone trying to accelerate further. What’s the goal? Yes, some kids are extremely math inclined and some very small number are beautiful mind like gifted. But not than many. What’s going on here mostly is parents racing and enriching like it’s a sport.

[Anonymous]

How do Blair and Poolesville account for the fact that kids who happen to go to middle schools that allow Algebra 1 in 6th grade will presumably have significantly higher MAP scores than those at middle schools that don't?

(And what about kids who don't take Algebra 1 until 8th because they missed out on compacted math in ES due to decisions made when they were 8 years old? Their MAP scores will presumably be even further behind-- do they even have a chance?)