Program analysis webinars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct?

If they clearly addressed concerns presented, instesd of obscuring/hiding relevant information and trying to run out the clock, they might limit their fight to that directly relevant, rather than that much larger scope generated by the combination of conjecture and misinformation that they invite with the vacuum they create. Of course, that would mean that they more clearly would be evidencing priorities/motivations, but they should be able to defend those, in any case, if they have chosen them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct?

If they clearly addressed concerns presented, instesd of obscuring/hiding relevant information and trying to run out the clock, they might limit their fight to that directly relevant, rather than that much larger scope generated by the combination of conjecture and misinformation that they invite with the vacuum they create. Of course, that would mean that they more clearly would be evidencing priorities/motivations, but they should be able to defend those, in any case, if they have chosen them.

As a relatively new to MCPS bystander I have two observations:
1. When it comes to MCPS I generally assume incompetence over malice
2. That being said I'm observing some individuals (on DCUM and on other forums) seeming determined to stir $h!t up by making sweeping statements that don't seem true, are deceptive in what they mention and don't mention or are purely speculative. I don't know if this is some sort of strategy to just get more for their (or our as the case may be) schools knowing that MCPS has historically cowed to the loudest voices.

We are zoned for Einstein and that's not likely to change. I've tried to see what is so awful about this for us and I'm not seeing it. It seems like a reasonable approach. It does seem quite rushed, which does worry me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

The slide deck they showed yesterday unfortunately does not have a date on it, but for all humanities, there is an asterisk that indicates it is proposed criteria-based. Maybe they are showing outdated slides? Regardless, MCPS should upload their recordings of yesterday’s webinars so you can all see for yourselves. Also you can Ask a Question on their programs analysis website to verify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct?

If they clearly addressed concerns presented, instesd of obscuring/hiding relevant information and trying to run out the clock, they might limit their fight to that directly relevant, rather than that much larger scope generated by the combination of conjecture and misinformation that they invite with the vacuum they create. Of course, that would mean that they more clearly would be evidencing priorities/motivations, but they should be able to defend those, in any case, if they have chosen them.

As a relatively new to MCPS bystander I have two observations:
1. When it comes to MCPS I generally assume incompetence over malice
2. That being said I'm observing some individuals (on DCUM and on other forums) seeming determined to stir $h!t up by making sweeping statements that don't seem true, are deceptive in what they mention and don't mention or are purely speculative. I don't know if this is some sort of strategy to just get more for their (or our as the case may be) schools knowing that MCPS has historically cowed to the loudest voices.

We are zoned for Einstein and that's not likely to change. I've tried to see what is so awful about this for us and I'm not seeing it. It seems like a reasonable approach. It does seem quite rushed, which does worry me.

1) Wait until you have some direct contact on these issues. Those who have generally know the combination of factors in this skews toward the intentional (if that counts as malice) to an unreasonable degree vs. the lack of resources (if that counts as incompetence).

2) Well noted, but that doesn't mean that there aren't more legitimate concerns expressed and more accurate statements made (perhaps lost in that noise, to a degree).

As far as this being unfavorable to Einstein, consider this:

-- envision a dial/meter, the kind with a needle that swings left or right

-- place Einstein on one side and B-CC on the other

-- on academic opportunity, alone (forget about the neighborhood, etc.), place the needle somewhere along the continuum, according to your preference, based on your preference for your children

-- repeat for your estimation of the interests of a representative sample population of Einstein-zoned and B-CC-zoned families

-- estimate an average needle position

-- if the average needle position isn't close to the center, consider what that position would be if magnet programs were rearranged

I'm guessing you (and most) would find things considerably closer to the center with something like swapping either the IB magnet or the Humanities magnet (each criteria-based) from B-CC with the Education magnet (interest-based) from Einstein.

This could be expanded to consider all schools within a region, of course. A similar comparison framework might be used when deciding on capital expenditures to address differences in facilities, but I digress...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct?

If they clearly addressed concerns presented, instesd of obscuring/hiding relevant information and trying to run out the clock, they might limit their fight to that directly relevant, rather than that much larger scope generated by the combination of conjecture and misinformation that they invite with the vacuum they create. Of course, that would mean that they more clearly would be evidencing priorities/motivations, but they should be able to defend those, in any case, if they have chosen them.

As a relatively new to MCPS bystander I have two observations:
1. When it comes to MCPS I generally assume incompetence over malice
2. That being said I'm observing some individuals (on DCUM and on other forums) seeming determined to stir $h!t up by making sweeping statements that don't seem true, are deceptive in what they mention and don't mention or are purely speculative. I don't know if this is some sort of strategy to just get more for their (or our as the case may be) schools knowing that MCPS has historically cowed to the loudest voices.

We are zoned for Einstein and that's not likely to change. I've tried to see what is so awful about this for us and I'm not seeing it. It seems like a reasonable approach. It does seem quite rushed, which does worry me.

If you generally assume incompetence over malice with MCPS, why on Earth do you think this plan will go well?

Furthermore, did you even bother to look into how MCPS executed the Regional IB programs they launched 6 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

[Anonymous]

Have they said anything about set-aside quotas for the schools hosting the magnets? If they're doing that, that sounds like a terrible idea to me. Doesn't it defeat the whole idea behind the regional concept?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct?

If they clearly addressed concerns presented, instesd of obscuring/hiding relevant information and trying to run out the clock, they might limit their fight to that directly relevant, rather than that much larger scope generated by the combination of conjecture and misinformation that they invite with the vacuum they create. Of course, that would mean that they more clearly would be evidencing priorities/motivations, but they should be able to defend those, in any case, if they have chosen them.

As a relatively new to MCPS bystander I have two observations:
1. When it comes to MCPS I generally assume incompetence over malice
2. That being said I'm observing some individuals (on DCUM and on other forums) seeming determined to stir $h!t up by making sweeping statements that don't seem true, are deceptive in what they mention and don't mention or are purely speculative. I don't know if this is some sort of strategy to just get more for their (or our as the case may be) schools knowing that MCPS has historically cowed to the loudest voices.

We are zoned for Einstein and that's not likely to change. I've tried to see what is so awful about this for us and I'm not seeing it. It seems like a reasonable approach. It does seem quite rushed, which does worry me.

If you generally assume incompetence over malice with MCPS, why on Earth do you think this plan will go well?

Furthermore, did you even bother to look into how MCPS executed the Regional IB programs they launched 6 years ago?

I literally said I was worried about the rushed approach they are taking.

Do you have anything tangible to offer to this discussion or are you just here to get your aggression out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

You are forgetting the First Law of DCUM. Everything bad is done to DCC. Everything good is done for a W school. Facts don't matter.