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.
Because this CES is Cold Spring. I can envision that the regional model will be most successful for the region that includes Churchill or Wootton or Whitman, just like the current regional IB is the most successful in BCC. But for other top students out of these catchment areas, they could have get a good education experience but would not within their regions.
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.
Nicely put. I have a kid with IEP and also 99 pecentile score. I don't think his every needs were met by MCPS but that's unrealistic expectation. He still got lot out of MCPS system.
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.
Because this CES is Cold Spring. I can envision that the regional model will be most successful for the region that includes Churchill or Wootton or Whitman, just like the current regional IB is the most successful in BCC. But for other top students out of these catchment areas, they could have get a good education experience but would not within their regions.
Are you claimng that Cold Spring CES is the only one which can provide peer group to your DS? All other CES program will fail to provide?
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.
Nicely put. I have a kid with IEP and also 99 pecentile score. I don't think his every needs were met by MCPS but that's unrealistic expectation. He still got lot out of MCPS system.
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.
+1 There isn’t any data at all, actually. At least none that’s been shared with the community or even the members of the BOE. There are a lot of moving parts to this change and it is abundantly clear that the MCPS staff who are designing this new system are completely out of their depth. Transportation alone seems like a big guess rather than actually considering traffic and required routes.
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.
Because this CES is Cold Spring. I can envision that the regional model will be most successful for the region that includes Churchill or Wootton or Whitman, just like the current regional IB is the most successful in BCC. But for other top students out of these catchment areas, they could have get a good education experience but would not within their regions.
It's amazing to me how bias people are. Lots of kids could be successful if given the opportunity. The Churchill, Whootton and Whitman kids get far more aready at their home schools. They should focus on the kids whose schools provide the bare minimum.
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.
+1 There isn’t any data at all, actually. At least none that’s been shared with the community or even the members of the BOE. There are a lot of moving parts to this change and it is abundantly clear that the MCPS staff who are designing this new system are completely out of their depth. Transportation alone seems like a big guess rather than actually considering traffic and required routes.
Taylor promised transparency but we haven't seen any of that. We don't need six regional, maybe three but make the locations closer and beef up the schools lacking.
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.
Because this CES is Cold Spring. I can envision that the regional model will be most successful for the region that includes Churchill or Wootton or Whitman, just like the current regional IB is the most successful in BCC. But for other top students out of these catchment areas, they could have get a good education experience but would not within their regions.
I have good news for you. You can stop worrying because Churchill, Wootton, and Whitman are all in different "regions," which comprise most of what Blair SCMS serves presently. So we are all good as long as there is one "anchor" school in each region, which there is.
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.
+1 There isn’t any data at all, actually. At least none that’s been shared with the community or even the members of the BOE. There are a lot of moving parts to this change and it is abundantly clear that the MCPS staff who are designing this new system are completely out of their depth. Transportation alone seems like a big guess rather than actually considering traffic and required routes.
Taylor promised transparency but we haven't seen any of that. We don't need six regional, maybe three but make the locations closer and beef up the schools lacking.
The reason for the six regions is so locations will be closer.
I will suggest regional magnet attedance zone not based on HS but based on distance. Why put artificial restrictions? I am sure there is some downside but I can see more upside.
Anonymous wrote:NP. It means they will be available only to kids zoned for a school in the same region as the program.
The reason why the current programs are so successful is that MCPS can concentrate resources. If this is expanded, it will dilute everything, and the quality of all the programs would go down drastically. You would not be able to find enough teachers capable of teaching some of these advanced courses.
In addition, I highly doubt all these programs would even be nearly of the same quality if equity is the goal. Look at the current regional IB programs, and compare them to RM.
Every time this comes up I feel the need to remind folks that the regional IB magnets have only been in existence long enough to have ONE graduating class, and continue to lose the strongest students to RMIB. Assuming that outcomes wouldn't improve with this change is not correct.
I would actually agree with you on this. But, this is not the main reason.
The students are a huge factor in determining if the program is successful.
If you look at the testing & graduation section for Kennedy, RM, and Whitman, they are not even close to comparable. It is not feasible to offer many of the courses because there are not enough students who are able to fill up the classes. And thus, those at the very top of some regional programs will not have the same opportunity as others.
A strong student body also helps the students. Students who are strong and passionate about a subject will help push each other up so everyone improves. This is not possible with so many regional programs, as the data show.
Additionally, if you create so many programs, you will require so many more teachers. The teachers at the countywides are incredibly skilled, specialized, and unique. They are some of the very best educators in the nation. I doubt you would find enough to equitably staff all the programs.
+1 splitting the 100 or RMIB students across the regions is not going to provide the economies of scale for each of those regional programs to provide the additional courses that RMIB has.
Kennedy has had 4 years to to develop its IB program, yet they still don't have magnet level classes starting in 9th grade from what I saw of the course offerings at Kennedy. RMIB has magnet level classes starting in the 9th grade.
I have a hard time believing that in a county as huge and educated as MoCo, that there are only 100 students per year who are snowflake smart enough to handle a rigorous IB curriculum. I think the real constraint is qualified teachers.
I agree with you. So Blair should become TJ and offer 500 slots per year. But not dividing these kids to 6 regions.
Well, you'd have to hire a lot more teachers with expansion, too. The difference is the regional programs would offer the ability for students to have a shorter commute. But as someone else said upthread, 6 regions is probably overkill; maybe 4 or even 2-3 would work better.
Probably a lot less teachers than splitting into 6 programs. If they sincerely want to expand magnet opportunities, they should expand existing programs and add one program somewhere. That’s it.
I agree that a more incremental approach would be better. Add seats to existing programs, open up additional programs one at a time, then re-evaluate. This major overhaul all at once has the potential to be a disaster.
I think while they are re-allocating staff to new high schools, this is a good time to set up all of the programs. In addition, there isn't space at Blair to add more seats. The budget is under stress and it doesn't make sense to add seats to a program that you will take apart in a few years. Kids who would like to access special programming closer to their home will be well served by moving quickly. Rip off the band-aid.
.
You could make space to double the seats for SMCS by just moving the other Blair magnet to a different HS.
Anonymous wrote:I will suggest regional magnet attedance zone not based on HS but based on distance. Why put artificial restrictions? I am sure there is some downside but I can see more upside.
They can plan the bus routes by cluster if they're based on HS.
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.
+1 There isn’t any data at all, actually. At least none that’s been shared with the community or even the members of the BOE. There are a lot of moving parts to this change and it is abundantly clear that the MCPS staff who are designing this new system are completely out of their depth. Transportation alone seems like a big guess rather than actually considering traffic and required routes.
Taylor promised transparency but we haven't seen any of that. We don't need six regional, maybe three but make the locations closer and beef up the schools lacking.
The reason for the six regions is so locations will be closer.
How are QO and clarksburg, Wootton and Kennedy, Churchill and Wheaton close?
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.
Because this CES is Cold Spring. I can envision that the regional model will be most successful for the region that includes Churchill or Wootton or Whitman, just like the current regional IB is the most successful in BCC. But for other top students out of these catchment areas, they could have get a good education experience but would not within their regions.
I have good news for you. You can stop worrying because Churchill, Wootton, and Whitman are all in different "regions," which comprise most of what Blair SCMS serves presently. So we are all good as long as there is one "anchor" school in each region, which there is.
They should make it one region and because the kids are all so smart, move funding to the lesser schools to boost them up. Between the three schools kids can get everything they need and want.
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.
+1 There isn’t any data at all, actually. At least none that’s been shared with the community or even the members of the BOE. There are a lot of moving parts to this change and it is abundantly clear that the MCPS staff who are designing this new system are completely out of their depth. Transportation alone seems like a big guess rather than actually considering traffic and required routes.
Taylor promised transparency but we haven't seen any of that. We don't need six regional, maybe three but make the locations closer and beef up the schools lacking.
The reason for the six regions is so locations will be closer.
How are QO and clarksburg, Wootton and Kennedy, Churchill and Wheaton close?
The only reasonable way to do it is down, mid and upper county.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}