Impact of CAP/Poolesville Humanities/etc not being criteria-based anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

I agree with you. But the current regional model approach is breaking down the rigor for everything at the sacrifice of expanding rigor to basic curriculum/course offerings at local HSs.

Our school had little rigor and they are taking away the only good thing there, which was minimal too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interest based middle school programs are not known to be academically rigorous and I know several families that have left those programs because of the lack of rigor. Staff at CES programs and the criteria based magnets have spoken about needing to water down/simplify their teaching since the lottery started. So yes, rigor is likely to be significantly impacted if the humanities programs become interested based.

Re: the need to water down teaching due to lottery—this is due to the lowered criteria. Criteria should be at minimum 90 percentile.

Re: interest-based MS magnets—this is not a good comparison. Students zoned in that area must choose between the three schools or else they will be randomly placed. Inevitably a portion of the schools—especially one in particular—will have students who have no interest in the subject area. In the regional model, students have to apply, so this is a completely different scenario.

The regional model’s interest-based programs would be susceptible to students who have no interest and want to escape their home school, as a PP pointed out. This would ruin these programs.

No the solution to that is appropriate grading and rigor. Which is what is being banged into everyone’s head with this Program Analysis, absentee rate, cell phone policy, etc.

Appropriate grading? That would be the inflated grades that school leadership signals are needed in order for the school to avoid negative scrutiny from CO.

We haven't seen inflated grades but it really depends on the school and teacher. The problem we see is zero consistency and structure to the classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can anyone with experience with these programs, or with the difference between criteria-based and interest-based programs more generally, speak to the potential impact of this and whether you think it is concerning or would work out fine? How competitive/selective are these programs, and how much does the cohort makeup affect the experience? Are the classes currently challenging enough that an interest-based cohort would be unlikely to be able to handle them and hence they would likely be watered down moving forward? Would this be a modest change or a "these programs will no longer exist as we know them" kind of change?

I have a rising senior in the Poolesville Humanities program and I thought you should hear directly from a student in one of these programs. Here's what my DD had to say.

While the program is challenging and competitive (60 seats per grade for the entirety of the upcounty region), the rigor alone is not what makes PHS Humanities so special. The experience depends on students who are fast-paced learners, strong readers/writers and researchers, and motivated to form a tight-knit community with peers at their level. The cohort is the foundation of the experience. Being in classes with the same group of people throughout high school builds community, and that has been one of the best parts of going to PHS. I can't imagine myself anywhere else, and that's because of the people.

If you take away the cohort, Humanities is just a list of a bunch of AP classes that can be replicated at any school. 9th grade, AP Gov; 10th grade, AP Seminar and APUSH; 11th grade, AP Lang, AP World, and AP Art History; 12th grade, AP Research and AP Lit. Aside from two classes that were designed only for Humanities, you can get the full program experience anywhere....right? Except the cohort informs class discussions, the interdisciplinary projects, group work, field trips, etc. It just wouldn't be the same.

If it became interest-based, the rigor would definitely be reduced to accommodate the students who wouldn't previously have been accepted. I went to the middle school Humanities magnet at MLK, which became lottery-based during the pandemic starting with the class two years behind me. When I was in 8th grade, one of the program teachers confided that there was a noticeable difference in the abilities of the 6th graders and that the speed and rigor of the class were affected.

Ultimately, I haven't heard anything about this change from selective criteria-based to interest-based, but I hope it doesn't happen. Humanities would go from a program to a list of classes.

Send your concern to BOE and cc Taylor and Nicky Porter. They have no idea about these.

Of course Niki (Hazel) Porter knows (I imagine Taylor does, as well, but he's only been around a year vs. Porter's many, and this is within/very proximate to her sphere of influence, whereas Taylor has the whole kit and caboodle conpeting for his attention).

Support for it simply isn't her interest.

Her job title is chief academy officer. Why does she hate rigor so much? And who gives her power to always move nonsense forward to drag down the entire system? I don’t think she is a villain but just incompetent. At what point can she be hold accountable?

Watching the BOE meetings, Taylor seems very definite about his belief in the regional programming plan. I believe we need to hold him accountable.

I think regional programming is a good idea, but the skew that makes the STEM programs criteria-based, but the Humanities program interest-based, demonstrates a lack of respect for Humanities and what they offer students.

It appears that each high school is allowed only one criteria-based program - for Poolesville and Blair, these are their science-math magnets; humanities and communications programs at the schools have been shifted to interest-based programs.

MCPS just spent more than $64 million designing and constructing Poolesville’s new building (which just opened in April of 2024) around these specific programs, and giving the building nearly 3 times the core capacity of the number of students who are actually zoned for it. Now they’re completely re-imagining these programs and rushing the implementation of changes. They sure are visionaries and great stewards of our resources.

It will be interesting to see the funding that will be allocated to build to new regional program requirements. This, when we have multiple schools with terrible facility problems.

I’m not aware of any plans to renovate or build anything due to these program changes. The whole idea is to shoehorn them into existing schools while changing boundaries.

Slide 6 of July 24, 2025 presentation to BOE re: Program Analysis and Boundary Studies Update

Facility Utilization
● Keep schools within the 80 to 100 percent efficient facility utilization range
● Consider costs for resources (staffing, facilities,[b] transportation, etc.) associated with
options in order to be fiscally responsible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interest based middle school programs are not known to be academically rigorous and I know several families that have left those programs because of the lack of rigor. Staff at CES programs and the criteria based magnets have spoken about needing to water down/simplify their teaching since the lottery started. So yes, rigor is likely to be significantly impacted if the humanities programs become interested based.

Re: the need to water down teaching due to lottery—this is due to the lowered criteria. Criteria should be at minimum 90 percentile.

Re: interest-based MS magnets—this is not a good comparison. Students zoned in that area must choose between the three schools or else they will be randomly placed. Inevitably a portion of the schools—especially one in particular—will have students who have no interest in the subject area. In the regional model, students have to apply, so this is a completely different scenario.

The regional model’s interest-based programs would be susceptible to students who have no interest and want to escape their home school, as a PP pointed out. This would ruin these programs.

No the solution to that is appropriate grading and rigor. Which is what is being banged into everyone’s head with this Program Analysis, absentee rate, cell phone policy, etc.

Appropriate grading? That would be the inflated grades that school leadership signals are needed in order for the school to avoid negative scrutiny from CO.

We haven't seen inflated grades but it really depends on the school and teacher. The problem we see is zero consistency and structure to the classes.

We haven't seen inflated grading YET, now that the grading policy has been amended. Principals are not rewarded for leading a school with high failure rates. Teachers will also amend their lessons to make them less rigorous, depending on the students in their classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

I agree with you. But the current regional model approach is breaking down the rigor for everything at the sacrifice of expanding rigor to basic curriculum/course offerings at local HSs.

The superintendent is proving to be a problematic hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

You are so uninformed, I don't know even where to begin. Good luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

When has the budget been loose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

+1 The pp you’re replying to missed the fact that not only will there no longer be stringent criteria for admissions to humanities programs, but there will no longer be criteria, period. That’s a HUGE change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

+1 The pp you’re replying to missed the fact that not only will there no longer be stringent criteria for admissions to humanities programs, but there will no longer be criteria, period. That’s a HUGE change.

I think the person they were replying to was talking about the IB and SMCS magnets. They said 'This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB" and then they basically replied 'how do you know?". That is an important conversation (how much is lost by switching to regional criteria-based SMCS and IB magnets, and whether or not it is outweighed by what is gained in terms of more spots and more convenient spots.). But it is separate from the question of "should there be criteria-based Humanities programs at all?"