Blind item: Regional criteria "magnets" will be lottery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

The word lottery appears only once in that document for interest based programs.

I thought the whole point of this upheaval was to give kids more access, not less. How does Byron and the NAACP feel about this? We tried to tel him these PINOS are not good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

Yes! He often speaks about how this plan operates from a place of “abundance” versus scarcity. I can almost state it verbatim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

I think this is more nuanced than folks, including Taylor, would like to believe. YES, there should be high level courses offered in every building. But the devil is in the details. What are "high level courses?" and are they still high level if every kid in the school takes them?

That's the question Taylor has run smack into, and why we can't get a clear answer.

To take an example most folks will understand, "high level" math in every building probably means offering math up to the level that a typically high achieving kid could do taking one math class per year. In MCPS, that means offering up to MultiVariable in every school, because kids are being allowed to take Algebra in 6th across the county. Not often, but often enough that the option should be available. Maybe it's only one class per school, and maybe it's even hybrid/online, but every kid should have access.

But what about the real outliers? The kids who are taking Pre-Calc in middle school? The absolute bleeding edge of the bell curve? Well, that's why we should still have criteria-based magnets, because kids like that need to be gathered together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

I think this is more nuanced than folks, including Taylor, would like to believe. YES, there should be high level courses offered in every building. But the devil is in the details. What are "high level courses?" and are they still high level if every kid in the school takes them?

That's the question Taylor has run smack into, and why we can't get a clear answer.

To take an example most folks will understand, "high level" math in every building probably means offering math up to the level that a typically high achieving kid could do taking one math class per year. In MCPS, that means offering up to MultiVariable in every school, because kids are being allowed to take Algebra in 6th across the county. Not often, but often enough that the option should be available. Maybe it's only one class per school, and maybe it's even hybrid/online, but every kid should have access.

But what about the real outliers? The kids who are taking Pre-Calc in middle school? The absolute bleeding edge of the bell curve? Well, that's why we should still have criteria-based magnets, because kids like that need to be gathered together.

It isn’t that nuanced. MCPS knows exactly how many kids are enrolled in compacted math and therefore can predict how many kids will need advanced math classes to fulfill graduation requirements.

MCPS does not offer advanced English or Science options until 10th grade unless you’re at a regional magnet.

MCPS doesn’t oversee secondary principal staffing in the arts like they do in ES, so many schools aren’t able to offer leveled ensembles or the same advanced visual arts courses.

It’s not rocket science. The OLO Report 2026-2 gives clear recommendations for how MCPS can remedy this BEFORE changing to the regional model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS shared a huge document in November that showed all the proposed course progressions for the regional programs. They’re very different from existing program course progressions, even when MCPS is slapping the same name on programs. And now the application process is going to be different too.

MCPS should be honest and admit that every program they currently have will end and be replaced by the new model. Some of the new programs have the same names but they won’t have the same staff, students, or classes. Kids in 7th grade and younger shouldn’t expect programs to look the same at the do now.

Can someone link this document, please?

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DNLRYN704ACA/$file/WORKING%20DRAFT%20Sample%20Regional%20Programs%20Pathways%20251120.pdf

The word lottery appears only once in that document for interest based programs.

I thought the whole point of this upheaval was to give kids more access, not less. How does Byron and the NAACP feel about this? We tried to tel him these PINOS are not good

Byron only cares about making money and how it benefits him. He does not care who he hurts. He and his friends helped shut down the MVA. It was strange given the high numbers of Black and Brown and other minority and disabled students in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

I think this is more nuanced than folks, including Taylor, would like to believe. YES, there should be high level courses offered in every building. But the devil is in the details. What are "high level courses?" and are they still high level if every kid in the school takes them?

That's the question Taylor has run smack into, and why we can't get a clear answer.

To take an example most folks will understand, "high level" math in every building probably means offering math up to the level that a typically high achieving kid could do taking one math class per year. In MCPS, that means offering up to MultiVariable in every school, because kids are being allowed to take Algebra in 6th across the county. Not often, but often enough that the option should be available. Maybe it's only one class per school, and maybe it's even hybrid/online, but every kid should have access.

But what about the real outliers? The kids who are taking Pre-Calc in middle school? The absolute bleeding edge of the bell curve? Well, that's why we should still have criteria-based magnets, because kids like that need to be gathered together.

It isn’t that nuanced. MCPS knows exactly how many kids are enrolled in compacted math and therefore can predict how many kids will need advanced math classes to fulfill graduation requirements.

MCPS does not offer advanced English or Science options until 10th grade unless you’re at a regional magnet.

MCPS doesn’t oversee secondary principal staffing in the arts like they do in ES, so many schools aren’t able to offer leveled ensembles or the same advanced visual arts courses.

It’s not rocket science. The OLO Report 2026-2 gives clear recommendations for how MCPS can remedy this BEFORE changing to the regional model

If the schools offer AP science they can take it. Also, some schools have added AP Seminar for 10th. The problem is some schools don't offer any AP science classes or seminar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

If you are in a W school, Blair or Wheaton you get stem. If you aren't, too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

They are providing transportation from regional hubs but you still have to get your child there and pick them up and there is no transportation to those hubs. It's also an issue for sports, band, and after-school activities where no transportation is provided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not for certain. I’m a member of the “design team”(with quotes because we aren’t actually designing anything). Someone asked about this a couple of meetings ago and debated it with Jeannie. Jeannie def thinks that a lottery among qualified students is better, but said it is still TBD. The design team
Pushed back. People who care should write and call about this.

I agree that a lottery among qualified students is better. If the qualifications need to be tweaked based on the content of the program and the needed readiness for the program, then adjust the qualifications.

Except that doesn't work as the kids at that particular school benefit from it and what happens to the kids not accepted and at their home schools without resoruces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

I think this is more nuanced than folks, including Taylor, would like to believe. YES, there should be high level courses offered in every building. But the devil is in the details. What are "high level courses?" and are they still high level if every kid in the school takes them?

That's the question Taylor has run smack into, and why we can't get a clear answer.

To take an example most folks will understand, "high level" math in every building probably means offering math up to the level that a typically high achieving kid could do taking one math class per year. In MCPS, that means offering up to MultiVariable in every school, because kids are being allowed to take Algebra in 6th across the county. Not often, but often enough that the option should be available. Maybe it's only one class per school, and maybe it's even hybrid/online, but every kid should have access.

But what about the real outliers? The kids who are taking Pre-Calc in middle school? The absolute bleeding edge of the bell curve? Well, that's why we should still have criteria-based magnets, because kids like that need to be gathered together.

+1 I think it’s a reasonable goal to have MV Calc at every HS. If there aren’t 26 teachers capable of teaching that class in the district, I’d rather have the teachers split their time and teach at multiple schools rather than transporting all the kids around.

[Anonymous]

As a teacher in a lottery based program, there are definitely problems. Quite a few kids just want to change high schools for various reasons. Most are successful, but kids who are frequently skipping classes getting in fights and failing math courses in middle school will just continue to do the same in high school. There should be minimum standards or else they just going to tie up spots for other students. They will likely just get kicked out of these magnet programs and go back to their home high school anyways. It doesn’t really help them, other students, or the programs to have no minimum standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had surveyed families to get a sense of interest at the start of this process?

It’s amazing to me that they built out this enormous, complicated, expensive plan without asking families if anyone wanted it. They think they know but they have no idea. I have a kid in a program. If that particular kid were working within what our proposed region will be, kid would not be interested in doing the equivalent program and would not apply. According to the stats they are using, they’d assume my kid would apply for/likely accept a regional program spot. But since they didn’t ask, they don’t know their assumptions are wrong, at least for our family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had surveyed families to get a sense of interest at the start of this process?

It’s amazing to me that they built out this enormous, complicated, expensive plan without asking families if anyone wanted it. They think they know but they have no idea. I have a kid in a program. If that particular kid were working within what our proposed region will be, kid would not be interested in doing the equivalent program and would not apply. According to the stats they are using, they’d assume my kid would apply for/likely accept a regional program spot. But since they didn’t ask, they don’t know their assumptions are wrong, at least for our family.

Tell this to the BOE and ask them to slow down the process and gather more data first.

I asked exactly this in an info session "what makes you believe QO students will choose to attend Watkins Mill IB when RMIB is no longer an option? Especially if Watkins Mill is not any closer to them?"

MCPS response? "We believe they will."

This whole analysis is based on vibes.