MCPS to end areawide Blair Magnet and countywide Richard Montgomery's IB program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10-15 years from now, we will all look back at this as another failed MCPS initiatives with a superintendent who will be long gone by then.

10-15 years? I don't think you have to wait that long. I think the wreckage will be plain in 5 years from now and Taylor will either be forced out or have moved on by then as well.

[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:I appreciate the perspective of the current student, but listen to those of us with experience outside specialized schools. You would still have your string peer group because you would be taking the same classes for your specialized program. Possibly some of your electives might be integrated with “regular” kids, but it’s an important life skill for you to learn. You will not live your adult life surrounded by peers with your same level of intelligence, motivation, and access.

My own experience at a HS in a different state with 3,000 students, 555 in my graduating class. Our grade had a cohort of kids on advanced tracks and we were need up with almost all of our classes together for 4 years because we were the only students eligible for those advanced courses.

MCPS doesn't have a TJ or Stuy.
The countywide programs already have electives and even core courses shared with the host school.

Regardless, people who have never seen a specialized countywide program for don't understand the value it provides for the students who would be bored in the "advanced" courses.

When we were young, students who didn't have access to such programs would graduate high school early or Dual Enroll at a university, and have to find a gap year program or deal with the social challenge of being a year or more younger than their classmates.

And that’s what will happen again. For the regular advanced kids there are already many options - there is a wealth of AP classes, more IB spots than demand, the CAP program, Project Lead the Way, early college, dual enrollment. SO MANY options, not all well used. Any motivated advanced student can build a path through high school that meets their needs. But for the very highly motivated and extremely high achieving, Blair is the offering with the track record of meeting their needs. For a very small number of kids who need it. It is extremely short sighted to take this away.

A) Blair isn’t going away it’s catchment area is changing
B) If it’s for a very small number of kids then it actually makes sense if it does go away and instead funnel those kids to their next stage at university. The county has to be good stewards of resources in providing opportunity.

So basically don’t provide a challenge for the most advanced learners. Got it!

Where does this logic end? Should UMD become open enrollment in order to provide opportunities?

The only thing I find persuasive against the magnets is that the academic pressure is too much now because of the escalating competition. I’m not sure how you solve for that - if kids do just as well in a less intense setting then maybe it is important for schools to consider the kids’ overall wellness. But you hear plenty of stories of kids from top public HS fighting the same battles for accomplishments so I am not at all sure that this is unique to the culture of magnets.

K-12 does not serve the same end as higher education, nor does access function in the same way. You cannot compare a public school magnet to a flagship university. And no one has claimed we shouldn’t be challenging the top students. We are arguing about how to allocate resources in a large public school system that needs to provide for all students. UMD has no such obligation.

Yeah only because you are creating arbitrary distinctions though. It used to be that there was no question that the smartest kids in K-12 should get tracked or placed in magnets. In the past decade, this has become anathema for K-12 for a variety of reasons variously (and contradictorily) expressed as concerns with equity, or assertions that kids did not "need" advancement and it was bad for them (that was the SF argument for withholding algebra until 9th grade). Especially with regards to HS, there is no logical distinction between this kind of negative view of selectivity in private school that would not also extend to flagship colleges. What I believe happened is that K-12 education was caputured by dumbsh*ts chasing educational trends with no regard for actually teaching kids. And this extends also to other disastrous choices like "Zoom school," getting rid of textbooks, teaching kids math via computer apps ...

I do believe the smartest kids should get access to an accelerated track. The issue is that they currently don’t. CES and middle school magnets are lottery based. High school magnets have some successes but also some widespread equity issues including geography. I want more many more students to get access to advanced classes and a peer cohort. I’m less concerned about the couple dozen students per year across the entire county that might lose something kind of cool.

2024-2025 School Year:


1. Going from 12 special programs to 30 means we’re going to need many more teachers who are qualified to teach the most advanced classes.

Sure, but you are also going to have a beat to hire those folks. I've had a child in the "most rigorous" magnet (SMCS) and one in a magnet that is already regional (CAP). I can attest that even at the Blair magnet, the 9th and 10th graders are not taking classes that can't be taught by any reasonably qualified teacher in that subject. It's only in 11th and 12th grades that a handful of kids are taking classes that are effectively collegiate level.

The first class of kids at the regional magnets won't begin for two years, and they won't hit the highest level classes for another two. With thousands of laid off scientists around the region, some of whom are retraining though the special Maryland program to fast-track former feds and fed-adjacent folks, I am pretty sure they can scrape together enough teachers between now and four years from now.

As a federal scientist, I can say this with some confidence:

First, it's highly unlikely that most laid-off scientists will join a program to become teachers. The majority will pursue roles in private industry, research institutions, or similar paths. While maybe few will consider this path, that number will be very small. And once the federal hiring freeze ends and agencies begin recruiting again, they will return to federal service.

Second, even though these individuals may be exceptional scientists, that doesn’t necessarily make them effective teachers. Teaching requires a different set of skills and training that many scientists simply don’t have. (of course, Dr. Taylor will disagree. Obvioulsy he thinks whoevery has the certificate can be a good teacher).

As a federal scientist, totally agree with your points. And to add upon your second bullet, Dr. Taylor had explicitly emphasized multiple times that MCPS doesn't have the budget nor necessity to recruit talents out from the market.

You don't need "most" scientists to pursue teaching, though. You need like 10 across the entire district, and the thousands of folks who saw their research terminated. Sure, some will go to the private sector and others will wait out this administration. But it's not unreasonable that some smallish number will decide, sure, I'll take something stable over something that can be taken away every time the anti-science lunatics come to power and start doing a CTL-F for "transgenic."

[Anonymous]

All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

[Anonymous]

Ok, hear me out. I'm actually kind of in favor of an option that could accommodate more students, even if it is a somewhat watered-down version. My child was in CES in elementary school and is now at Takoma Park. We are from the Paint Branch cluster and so our commute to and from Takoma Park is a nightmare. My kid loves Takoma Park, but is probably not a tippy-top performer and has (had?) her sights set on Blair though I don't think she is enough of a math/science/computer science whiz for that program (though she gets all A's). She just really needs something better than what she'd get at her home school (Banneker). Maybe keep 1-2 programs for the true tippy top or the top performers, but those of us who have crappy home schools want better for our bright children, and there are more of them that the current system can accomodate. I'd be thrilled to have Blair-lite programs to choose from.

This is public school we're talking about. As others have said, plate tectonics can wait utnil college.

[Anonymous]

I think the top 10% (MAP) are capable in handling rigorous programs. The program will not be watered down if they ensure a hard cutoff. The question is execution (leadership, teachers) of the regional model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

You can’t have both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

lol. This is the definition of gatekeeping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

They think kids in the dcc and other schools are not as smart as theirs. If they offered more at all schools and not just the w schools more families would stay making those schools “better”. Every school should have the same course offerings. There is a huge disparity between the schools. The expectation is you have to pay a million or more for your home to get access and so what happens when these lower cost neighborhoods now have homes that surpass Bethesda and Potomac and other areas?

Bussing dcc kids cross county is unfair as there will only be a few slots and transportation outside school hours. They could offer the classes virtually. This is all show and no substance to deflect from what’s really going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, hear me out. I'm actually kind of in favor of an option that could accommodate more students, even if it is a somewhat watered-down version. My child was in CES in elementary school and is now at Takoma Park. We are from the Paint Branch cluster and so our commute to and from Takoma Park is a nightmare. My kid loves Takoma Park, but is probably not a tippy-top performer and has (had?) her sights set on Blair though I don't think she is enough of a math/science/computer science whiz for that program (though she gets all A's). She just really needs something better than what she'd get at her home school (Banneker). Maybe keep 1-2 programs for the true tippy top or the top performers, but those of us who have crappy home schools want better for our bright children, and there are more of them that the current system can accomodate. I'd be thrilled to have Blair-lite programs to choose from.

This is public school we're talking about. As others have said, plate tectonics can wait utnil college.

I feel you- except for the last part, Blair’s electives are so fun for the kids, and they are ready for those introductions. I have a kid who didn’t get into a magnet but who is BORED in all her classes It would be nice to have something in between for her.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a critical mass of highly able students in the same classroom, a good program, and good teachers for this to be successful. Montgomery county benefited from the national awards won by Blair, Poolesville, and RM students, by increased tax revenue for instance. It is simply not possible to achieve the same level of success with regional programs. There won't be enough interested and capable students to justify the same level of classes at the same number of classes. There won't be enough teachers capable of teaching these classes at the same level they are taught today. For all practical purposes, this is the end of a very successful program. Sad.

Totally agree. It’s just impossible to duplicate those highly successful programs across all six regions. Eventually, the so-called magnet programs in each region will become just regular programs with a few advanced classes.

But I guess no one cares.

People don't care because the few magnets slots are placed in the far eastern part of the county or upper Northwest part of the county. For the vast majority of us, our kids either didn't qualify because we haven't been prepping them since the age of 5 AND/OR we live far away and travel time isn't worth it. What is the plan for middle school magnets? IMO, that is the level where we most need reform.

Middle school magnets are on the chopping block next year. I haven't heard about the gifted and talented programs at the elementary school levels, but it makes sense those will be cancelled after the middle school programs are unwound.

If that means that GT kids will have access to accelerated and enriched programming that is meaningful at local schools that is great. My children have never had lottery luck and have been stuck with sun-par programming at local schools.

You’re delusion if you think this means any improvement for your kids.

Well worth my kids not being served at all
By CES/magnets right now, it won’t be any worse for them.

You need to think about beyond

DP. The status quo is not serving the vast majority of CO-identified students with needs for acceleration, especially in secondary.

The reforms won’t help them. And if the students cannot benefit from the AP programs they already have - what makes you think a regional magnet will be better

Why won't the reforms help them? My kid isn't in H$ yet but my understanding is that there is currently little to no acceleration or enrichment in 9th or 10th except math, whereas the programs will cover all of high school.

Ask yourself why they cannot just offer acceleration in 9th and 10th instead of canceling the highly selective magnets? Hint - because they are not actually interested in tracking kids. They want to stop tracking. the regional magnets will be lottery based and will not offer the acceleration you envision.

This part of the conversation really interests me. I do not know enough about the current situation or solutions, but I think differentiated instruction across schools for all 4 years is really important. It’s important in MS too. This is something I got in my run of the mill large public HS back in the day (not MoCo) and it feels important.

There's no tracking nor differentiation since MS in MCPS. It's honor-for-all. The special programs are created for creating some differentiation, and it's going to be honor-for-all again soon once the regional model is implemented. Central office people don't care for education, don't care about students, and don't care about teachers either. They care about how to spend tax payer's money to create the "achievements" on their resume. And BOE should be hold accountable for unanimously applauding everything central office claim as "achievements".

+1111. At least teachers have an organized mechanism to press for their interests. parents do not. will be interesting to see if the cohort of magnet parents will be able to have any sort of impact here.

Why would they care?

+1 The kids currently in the walled-off programs will be able to finish in their bespoke jewel in which some classes serve 5-10 kids.

In the meantime, MCPS will build a set of programs that serve many more kids, offering accelerated and enriched instruction to an additional 200 or so kids per year (assuming we're only talking about STEM, because DCUM is always only talking about STEM).

The only people who would be upset are the folks who feel sure down to the tips of their toes that their own personal kid would absolutely get into RMIB or SMCS, which is like all of those working Republicans who vote for tax policies to benefit the wealthy because they are sure they will also be millionaires one day.

You are a complete tool if you believe the above will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

A good number of DCC families are doing financially well. Many just don’t choose to live flashy lifestyles so you’d have no clue by our houses, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the top 10% (MAP) are capable in handling rigorous programs. The program will not be watered down if they ensure a hard cutoff. The question is execution (leadership, teachers) of the regional model.

What is the basis for your statement? Did you pick 10% randomly? Do you have any familiarity with the difference between kids who are in the 95th% locally versus kids in the 90th%? Any hard cutoff will leave some angry parents, so there had better be some justification for the hard cutoff, and principals can’t have any discretion in admission or the whole thing falls apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, hear me out. I'm actually kind of in favor of an option that could accommodate more students, even if it is a somewhat watered-down version. My child was in CES in elementary school and is now at Takoma Park. We are from the Paint Branch cluster and so our commute to and from Takoma Park is a nightmare. My kid loves Takoma Park, but is probably not a tippy-top performer and has (had?) her sights set on Blair though I don't think she is enough of a math/science/computer science whiz for that program (though she gets all A's). She just really needs something better than what she'd get at her home school (Banneker). Maybe keep 1-2 programs for the true tippy top or the top performers, but those of us who have crappy home schools want better for our bright children, and there are more of them that the current system can accomodate. I'd be thrilled to have Blair-lite programs to choose from.

This is public school we're talking about. As others have said, plate tectonics can wait utnil college.

blair is a very specific program. My kids had zero interest in it as it was so ridged. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get access to higher level and ap classes which they are being denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

You can’t have both ways.

You can have equity by expanding opportunities and removing the barrier of 20 mile commutes. We only need to achieve equity, not equality.