County-wide magnet/IB/GE/Humanity programs will become regional programs if the secondary program plan is passed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no good reason why we shouldn't expand and add more magnet programs. This poster is selfish and their kids needs are met so they don't care that other kids needs aren't met.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way they broke up the schools makes it impossible for some families to participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no good reason why we shouldn't expand and add more magnet programs. This poster is selfish and their kids needs are met so they don't care that other kids needs aren't met.

+1 I am sick of seeing posts about how things will be watered down such that 20 extraordinarily bright kids won't get everything they need while the vast majority of MCPS kids get nothing additional. Let them eat cake indeed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They need more magnets to appeal to more kids. Blair is a very specific program that doesn't appeal to all kids.

I don't get the big drama over the functions class. Better to start kids in algebra in 6th and allow them time to understand the material better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good 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:Listen. People are upset because MCPS has a deep history of saying they will offer equivalent enriched courses at home schools (or in this case in home “regions”) but the home option ends up either being watered down, not offered, not equivalent, or yanked after promised.
Examples:
-ELC offered as alternative to CES (especially given lottery admissions), then ELC yanked, and CKLA enriched option allowed to be offered as minimally as 30 minutes a week with no accountability mechanism
-Middle school global humanities offered at home schools to mirror humanities at Eastern. Course is nothing like Eastern, novel studies omitted by teachers without accountability, numerous schools put all students in the enriched course and operate at grade level
-Regional IBs added. Fewer courses than countywide, way lower success rates on IB exams, number of applicants barely exceeds seats so ends up being more of a choice program than an actual criteria program despite how it is presented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way they broke up the schools makes it impossible for some families to participate.

How do you know that since they haven't even established which programs will be where yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

I think they can get a "good education" no matter what, and let's be clear that these 20-50 kids winning international awards are not winning them purely because they attend Blair or Poolesville. They are winning awards because they've been attending competitive math programs outside MCPS since elementary school, and/or because they are able to leverage familial connections to get internships at the NIH or other laboratory environments that then allow them to run their own projects.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way they broke up the schools makes it impossible for some families to participate.

Then focus should be to improve that. One idea came in my mind is to not limit it by HS. Limit it by geography/distance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

I think they can get a "good education" no matter what, and let's be clear that these 20-50 kids winning international awards are not winning them purely because they attend Blair or Poolesville. They are winning awards because they've been attending competitive math programs outside MCPS since elementary school, and/or because they are able to leverage familial connections to get internships at the NIH or other laboratory environments that then allow them to run their own projects.

You are wrong. My DC is among one of them. I spent zero dollar on out-of-school enrichment since he joint CES. He finally found his peer since CES, who went together to MS magnet and then Blair, where they kept on being exposed to the strongest peers, all kinds of competition opportunities, and their training for attending things like science bowl or computer programing contest are mainly conducted by their higher grade colleagues, and they started to pass down the experience and knowledge to junior ones in this program. Dismantling county-wide program will destroy their learning opportunities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

Good education hardly means meeting every need. TJ provides good education without meeting every need. TJ does not have classes which only 20 kids in otuny take, but kids get good education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no good reason why we shouldn't expand and add more magnet programs. This poster is selfish and their kids needs are met so they don't care that other kids needs aren't met.

+1 I am sick of seeing posts about how things will be watered down such that 20 extraordinarily bright kids won't get everything they need while the vast majority of MCPS kids get nothing additional. Let them eat cake indeed!

well, some of us are sick of MCPS watering down academics. Why do you think Taylor has changed the grading policy? Because watering grading down was detrimental to academics and the students, and MCPS's reputation.

Same thing will happen if they water down the magnets.

FWIW, my youngest will be done with MCPS (thank goodness) next year. But, it would be a real shame for some of the shining star programs in MCPS to become duller.

And no, there aren't enough that high caliber students to justify having some of those challenging classes in every school or regional programs. Look at the IB exam pass rates per IB program, for example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

Good education hardly means meeting every need. TJ provides good education without meeting every need. TJ does not have classes which only 20 kids in otuny take, but kids get good education.

Yeah. We can make a dedicated HS (e.g., Crown HS) a Maryland TJ. In that way the teaching resources can be mostly focused, and the school has large enough capacity to give those high-achievers a good, undiluted education experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

I think they can get a "good education" no matter what, and let's be clear that these 20-50 kids winning international awards are not winning them purely because they attend Blair or Poolesville. They are winning awards because they've been attending competitive math programs outside MCPS since elementary school, and/or because they are able to leverage familial connections to get internships at the NIH or other laboratory environments that then allow them to run their own projects.

You are wrong. My DC is among one of them. I spent zero dollar on out-of-school enrichment since he joint CES. He finally found his peer since CES, who went together to MS magnet and then Blair, where they kept on being exposed to the strongest peers, all kinds of competition opportunities, and their training for attending things like science bowl or computer programing contest are mainly conducted by their higher grade colleagues, and they started to pass down the experience and knowledge to junior ones in this program. Dismantling county-wide program will destroy their learning opportunities.

As per your word, your DC found peer group finally in CES. Why do you think that regional magnet will not allow to find peer group in HS? I am not following any logic here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

I think they can get a "good education" no matter what, and let's be clear that these 20-50 kids winning international awards are not winning them purely because they attend Blair or Poolesville. They are winning awards because they've been attending competitive math programs outside MCPS since elementary school, and/or because they are able to leverage familial connections to get internships at the NIH or other laboratory environments that then allow them to run their own projects.

+1.

I think the conversation that should be more explicit here is what level of education is sufficient, but I also think there's no program MCPS will design that does not give the 99th percentile kids a "good" education, even if it's not the best education their parents can imagine.

A few pages back, there was a poster who was talking about how high achieving students are entitled to a "quality education" like students with disabilities, but of course that's NOT what students with disabilities are entitled to. They're entitled to a "basic floor of opportunity" or "Chevy" rather than "Cadillac" education (I'm borrowing language from the case law).

Any program MCPS is going to design is going to give the current magnet students their version of a "basic floor" of acceleration. For me, the question is whether it's better to offer that level of acceleration to more kids who need it or whether we should be offering the accelerated version of a "Cadillac" education to the top one percent of kids. There's pros and cons to both, but I think framing it as if any system that doesn't let some kids take linear algebra in high school isn't offering a "good education" isn't particularly honest. At the point that that's even a conversation, you've gotten a good 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:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not denying the merits of expansion to regional programs. But be realistic. They will be diluted significantly and can not compare to current programs. While satisfying more needs for those 99% percentile students that are not selected, can we also keep the undiluted program and make a hybrid model? These 20 - 50 top kids per year win numerous national or international level awards and the majority of the families of these kids cannot afford private schools. They also deserve a good education.

Good education hardly means meeting every need. TJ provides good education without meeting every need. TJ does not have classes which only 20 kids in otuny take, but kids get good education.

Yeah. We can make a dedicated HS (e.g., Crown HS) a Maryland TJ. In that way the teaching resources can be mostly focused, and the school has large enough capacity to give those high-achievers a good, undiluted education experience.

One crown wil be too far for many kids. We need 3-4 of them to not have very long bus ride, that's what regional ,magnet will provide.