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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

The so-ridiculous-it's-not-even-wrong-it's-just-crazy bit "deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete" ruined what otherwise would have been passable. But the whole comment is suspect now.

PP here. I myself is a university professor, and have supervised a half dozen of PhD students and mentored a dozen HS interns. I'm not comparing them to MIT PhD students, but just comparing them to students in my department. These high schoolers (Blair, TJ, Poolsville) are much better at learning and implementing an idea than new PhD students. Many of them later earned ISEF/Regeneron semi-finalists or published papers before entering college. Go attend a few MCPS science fair or FCPS science fair, you can quickly find that their projects are at a completely different level. I appreciate MCPS and FCPS in providing the educations, peer groups and teaching resources to help them be so advanced and prepared for directly diving into research. It's just my fortune that one of my kids is one of them, and it's going to be a loss to let this type of students die in solitary and not-learning-at-all during K-12. I'm also proud and happy for my 99% kid that they can learn somewhat, from which I see some value in the expansion to regional programs. What I originally wanted to emphasize is that current SMACS curriculum is not suited for 90% kid at all. Tremendous watering down is needed (e.g., chopping off all junior and senior selectives) before suiting their needs, but to do this at the expense of butchering the current SMACS program is like a suicidal move for MCPS.

Oh please. As a university professor, you know those talented kids can get the skills for research in college at any major university. Meanwhile if you ignore the other 99% of MCPS students by not offering them any enriched curriculum opportunities, you've probably lost them for good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

But I guess no one cares.

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

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

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

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

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

You need to think about beyond

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

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

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

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

There is acceleration in math as you can pick algebra in 6-7th or at least currently. The problem is there is no math outside statistics at some schools outside calc bc and no science apps or other things. They push in at some schools but few kids actually graduate with ib degrees so they need to look at that and dump it. If you want MV, you have to go to MC or go without. And, if you go without you may not have enough math classes to graduate as they don’t allow independent study or other virtual outside MV.

they don't offer MVC in some schools because there is low demand for it. At RM, there are two full MVC classes, I believe, and not all are IB students.

If you dilute the top performers across six regions, you also dilute the demand, which means some of the regionals won't offer those courses.

Again, MCPS cannot create equal opportunities across all of the regions.

Many students leave their home schools as they don't have the offerings. If you have the offerings, more kids would stay at their home schools. There would be a demand at more schools if it were offered.

Yes, they can create equal opportunities.

I doubt that some of these schools have 30 kids who want to take or capable of taking mvc, not to mention that MCPS would have a hard time finding qualified mvc teachers for the six regions.

No, mcps cannot create equal programming.

I wonder if they can have a few teachers travel between schools to teach the highest level classes, instead of transporting all the kids to just a couple schools.

Oh that's an interesting idea! I imagine they could likely only do two schools each but that would still be a big help. They'd probably have to figure out how to sweeten the deal to make the hassles of it attractive to teachers, though. How do they get other teachers who split time between multiple schools to take those jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

The so-ridiculous-it's-not-even-wrong-it's-just-crazy bit "deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete" ruined what otherwise would have been passable. But the whole comment is suspect now.

PP here. I myself is a university professor, and have supervised a half dozen of PhD students and mentored a dozen HS interns. I'm not comparing them to MIT PhD students, but just comparing them to students in my department. These high schoolers (Blair, TJ, Poolsville) are much better at learning and implementing an idea than new PhD students. Many of them later earned ISEF/Regeneron semi-finalists or published papers before entering college. Go attend a few MCPS science fair or FCPS science fair, you can quickly find that their projects are at a completely different level. I appreciate MCPS and FCPS in providing the educations, peer groups and teaching resources to help them be so advanced and prepared for directly diving into research. It's just my fortune that one of my kids is one of them, and it's going to be a loss to let this type of students die in solitary and not-learning-at-all during K-12. I'm also proud and happy for my 99% kid that they can learn somewhat, from which I see some value in the expansion to regional programs. What I originally wanted to emphasize is that current SMACS curriculum is not suited for 90% kid at all. Tremendous watering down is needed (e.g., chopping off all junior and senior selectives) before suiting their needs, but to do this at the expense of butchering the current SMACS program is like a suicidal move for MCPS.

Oh please. As a university professor, you know those talented kids can get the skills for research in college at any major university. Meanwhile if you ignore the other 99% of MCPS students by not offering them any enriched curriculum opportunities, you've probably lost them for good.

Oh, please, can you read comprehensively?! I'm not completely against expansion. I'm saying without significant dilution, the expansion would bring more harm than good to students. Meanwhile, MCPS shouldn't remove the current county-wide (or half-count-wide, whatever) programs simply because the top 1% or 0.1% of kids have the same rights to receive education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

The so-ridiculous-it's-not-even-wrong-it's-just-crazy bit "deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete" ruined what otherwise would have been passable. But the whole comment is suspect now.

PP here. I myself is a university professor, and have supervised a half dozen of PhD students and mentored a dozen HS interns. I'm not comparing them to MIT PhD students, but just comparing them to students in my department. These high schoolers (Blair, TJ, Poolsville) are much better at learning and implementing an idea than new PhD students. Many of them later earned ISEF/Regeneron semi-finalists or published papers before entering college. Go attend a few MCPS science fair or FCPS science fair, you can quickly find that their projects are at a completely different level. I appreciate MCPS and FCPS in providing the educations, peer groups and teaching resources to help them be so advanced and prepared for directly diving into research. It's just my fortune that one of my kids is one of them, and it's going to be a loss to let this type of students die in solitary and not-learning-at-all during K-12. I'm also proud and happy for my 99% kid that they can learn somewhat, from which I see some value in the expansion to regional programs. What I originally wanted to emphasize is that current SMACS curriculum is not suited for 90% kid at all. Tremendous watering down is needed (e.g., chopping off all junior and senior selectives) before suiting their needs, but to do this at the expense of butchering the current SMACS program is like a suicidal move for MCPS.

Oh please. As a university professor, you know those talented kids can get the skills for research in college at any major university. Meanwhile if you ignore the other 99% of MCPS students by not offering them any enriched curriculum opportunities, you've probably lost them for good.

Nobody is ignoring the “other 99%.” destroying the program that is serving the most advanced students does nothing to help the 99% … unless you are a believer in equity on paper because in one fell swoop you’ve lopped the tail off the bell curve. And you are a total fool if you think the regionals are going to be as academically accelerated or even accelerated at all.

BTDT with DCPS. You really need to internalize that there are people in educational policy who have a lot of sway who believe that any acceleration is “hoarding opportunity” and should be eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

The so-ridiculous-it's-not-even-wrong-it's-just-crazy bit "deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete" ruined what otherwise would have been passable. But the whole comment is suspect now.

PP here. I myself is a university professor, and have supervised a half dozen of PhD students and mentored a dozen HS interns. I'm not comparing them to MIT PhD students, but just comparing them to students in my department. These high schoolers (Blair, TJ, Poolsville) are much better at learning and implementing an idea than new PhD students. Many of them later earned ISEF/Regeneron semi-finalists or published papers before entering college. Go attend a few MCPS science fair or FCPS science fair, you can quickly find that their projects are at a completely different level. I appreciate MCPS and FCPS in providing the educations, peer groups and teaching resources to help them be so advanced and prepared for directly diving into research. It's just my fortune that one of my kids is one of them, and it's going to be a loss to let this type of students die in solitary and not-learning-at-all during K-12. I'm also proud and happy for my 99% kid that they can learn somewhat, from which I see some value in the expansion to regional programs. What I originally wanted to emphasize is that current SMACS curriculum is not suited for 90% kid at all. Tremendous watering down is needed (e.g., chopping off all junior and senior selectives) before suiting their needs, but to do this at the expense of butchering the current SMACS program is like a suicidal move for MCPS.

MCPS has science fairs? We've never had a science fair, or even labs in science (except virtual). So, of course these kids are not getting what they need and should be getting way more. No need to take away the program but there is a need to enhance programming at the non-w schools that have much less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

That's ridiculous. Just because people want to expand programs beyond the top 1% of students as determined by MAP tests doesn't mean there's no point to having enrichment programs. FCPS has enrichment programs for its top 20% of students.

People can argue all day long about whether it's more beneficial to target programs to the top 1% or the top 20%. But no one can argue with the fact that if you're choosing the top 1% only, you'd better be sure they're actually the top 1%---and as long as they're chosen according to MAP tests, no one is sure of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

That's ridiculous. Just because people want to expand programs beyond the top 1% of students as determined by MAP tests doesn't mean there's no point to having enrichment programs. FCPS has enrichment programs for its top 20% of students.

People can argue all day long about whether it's more beneficial to target programs to the top 1% or the top 20%. But no one can argue with the fact that if you're choosing the top 1% only, you'd better be sure they're actually the top 1%---and as long as they're chosen according to MAP tests, no one is sure of anything.

1% is too few, and top 20% may be too many--but as long as the MCPS criteria to select these students is so narrow, I'd err on the side of a bigger program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

The so-ridiculous-it's-not-even-wrong-it's-just-crazy bit "deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete" ruined what otherwise would have been passable. But the whole comment is suspect now.

PP here. I myself is a university professor, and have supervised a half dozen of PhD students and mentored a dozen HS interns. I'm not comparing them to MIT PhD students, but just comparing them to students in my department. These high schoolers (Blair, TJ, Poolsville) are much better at learning and implementing an idea than new PhD students. Many of them later earned ISEF/Regeneron semi-finalists or published papers before entering college. Go attend a few MCPS science fair or FCPS science fair, you can quickly find that their projects are at a completely different level. I appreciate MCPS and FCPS in providing the educations, peer groups and teaching resources to help them be so advanced and prepared for directly diving into research. It's just my fortune that one of my kids is one of them, and it's going to be a loss to let this type of students die in solitary and not-learning-at-all during K-12. I'm also proud and happy for my 99% kid that they can learn somewhat, from which I see some value in the expansion to regional programs. What I originally wanted to emphasize is that current SMACS curriculum is not suited for 90% kid at all. Tremendous watering down is needed (e.g., chopping off all junior and senior selectives) before suiting their needs, but to do this at the expense of butchering the current SMACS program is like a suicidal move for MCPS.

Oh please. As a university professor, you know those talented kids can get the skills for research in college at any major university. Meanwhile if you ignore the other 99% of MCPS students by not offering them any enriched curriculum opportunities, you've probably lost them for good.

+1000. These HS students are most not going to be better than PhD students unless you are poorly selecting PhD students or those who only have theoretical knowledge but no research/field/prototyping experience

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

What I would like to know is which schools do not have enough higher level course options and how many students at these schools would actually select some of these courses if offered. This is the kind of data MCPS should be collecting to determine need/interest. People keep focusing on whether we should cut resources for magnet students, but conversely should we overturn the entire system apple cart because a few dozen students across a handful of lower performing high schools don’t have an appropriate course in one subject in one or two school years? It seems like we should directly solve that problem for those kids rather than dismantle successful programs and sprinkle thousands of students all over the place to give the appearance of increased access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

What I would like to know is which schools do not have enough higher level course options and how many students at these schools would actually select some of these courses if offered. This is the kind of data MCPS should be collecting to determine need/interest. People keep focusing on whether we should cut resources for magnet students, but conversely should we overturn the entire system apple cart because a few dozen students across a handful of lower performing high schools don’t have an appropriate course in one subject in one or two school years? It seems like we should directly solve that problem for those kids rather than dismantle successful programs and sprinkle thousands of students all over the place to give the appearance of increased access.

Absolutely!

[Anonymous]

💯 agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

My kid is far from Blair gifted but I get wanting your kid to have a likeminded peer group.

I don’t get arguing that it is the job of a public school system to keep hoarding all the best opportunities for the top 0.1%.

I actually think we have the resources to have 2 programs for highly able students AND have additional programs for other achieving students. This isn't hoarding. I'm not buying this new negative take on the magnet programs. I've heard that bad-mouthing language out of CO staff but they haven't released financial figures to back this up.

I don't arguing that is the job of the veterinarian to keep hoarding all the dogfood for the dogs.

It's not "hoarding" to match students to good-fit classes that wouldn't be good fits for other students.

Definitely not. But we have finite resources and we cannot continue to prioritize the best fit for the tiniest group of high achievers while overlooking the needs of large numbers of others.

+1 Agreed. There's no reason to target only the 1% and have nothing for the remaining the 99%. And that's assuming MCPS is even identifying which group of kids are the 1%, which they're probably not, since all they're looking at is MAP test scores which only test exposure and is fairly easy to game by a smart kid with some prep.

Then there is really no reason to go through all this at all. Go to your assigned HS. Choose amongst the available classes. Or go private. The busding sounds absurd for what sounds like a couple of extra electives with a cohort that would be sinilar to the ap track at any school.

What I would like to know is which schools do not have enough higher level course options and how many students at these schools would actually select some of these courses if offered. This is the kind of data MCPS should be collecting to determine need/interest. People keep focusing on whether we should cut resources for magnet students, but conversely should we overturn the entire system apple cart because a few dozen students across a handful of lower performing high schools don’t have an appropriate course in one subject in one or two school years? It seems like we should directly solve that problem for those kids rather than dismantle successful programs and sprinkle thousands of students all over the place to give the appearance of increased access.

As someone who lives in East County and whose child and some of her friends were lucky enough to lottery in to a magnet program AND who left friends behind who also got in but whose families just couldn't make the ridiculous commute work....well, I can't think of anything nice to say so I just won't say anything. But you get the picture.

[Anonymous]

According to Bethesda Magazine, the proposed plan would divide high schools into six regions as follows:

Region One: Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Walt Whitman (Bethesda), Montgomery Blair, Albert Einstein, and Northwood (Silver Spring)

Region Two: James Hubert Blake and Springbrook (Silver Spring), Paint Branch (Burtonsville), and Sherwood (Sandy Spring)

Region Three: Walter Johnson (Bethesda), Charles W. Woodward (Rockville), Wheaton and John F. Kennedy (Silver Spring)

Region Four: Richard Montgomery, Rockville, and Thomas S. Wootton (Rockville), and Winston Churchill (Potomac)

Region Five: Crown and Gaithersburg (Gaithersburg), Col. Zadok Magruder (Rockville), Damascus, and Watkins Mill (Wheaton)

Region Six: Northwest and Clarksburg (Germantown), Poolesville, Seneca Valley, and Quince Orchard (Gaithersburg)

Maintaining countywide program options is seen as critical to ensuring equitable access across all six regions, especially since it would be difficult to guarantee equal resources and opportunities in every region under the new model.

[Anonymous]

America's always been a land of 1% leaders and 99% followers who benefited from 1%'s leadership and creativity.