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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Let them eat cake, right?
Barf

Let them enjoy the cake and other fruits of the genius, yes. Enjoy your iPhone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Because these 1% kids are so special because they have high MAP-M or MAP-R scores? A test that is a measure of exposure and that can be easily prepped for? What utter BS. These are largely not Young Sheldons, just hardworking kids who have prepped for the selection criteria.

The reason you are having trouble understanding is that these kids are smarter than you, so you can't recognize their intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Okay, you are illustrating so many of the problems of this way of thinking and operating. If there really is only a top 1% with the brilliance and creativity to change the world who need special programs to nurture that talent further, then "working hard" isn't what gets you into that group. People's kids shouldn't just be "working harder" to bump up their MAP scores to get into countywide programs and then claiming they are better than everyone else and expansion would water things down, while taking the spaces from actually brilliant and creative kids from poorer backgrounds who don't have the time, resources, strong feeder schools, and sophistication to juice their scores enough to beat out the richer "hard workers."

If you want a program for the top 1% you need to figure out how to actually select the best kids with the most natural talent and potential across the county regardless of background. If you can't do then and those smarter poorer kids keep getting beaten out by bright hardworking richer kids, then you should cast a wider net.

Yeah I really don't want a program that just gives hardworking better-off kids a leg up over smarter but poorer kids. More than half the kids at Blair SMCS and RMIB are from just four schools: Wootton, Churchill, WJ, and RM-- that's over 500 kids between the 4-- while most of the other schools send less than 5 kids per year. I am very, very skeptical that that's based on actual disparities in intelligence and potential among kids in those schools versus others...

Have you ever thought about WHY Wootton, Churchill, and WJ are full of non-poor people?

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

NP.

You correctly describe those policymakers in NYC and in the Seattle public schools, who decided and then implemented the total elimination of their G&T programs in public schools.

[Anonymous]

[code]

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.

Why is your lab so dysfunctional that you insist on running it almost entirely by people with a Master degree even though the work doesn't require a college education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kids don't like to be in 99% group and want to be in that 1% group, have them work harder instead of demanding changing 1% to 10%. We all lose that way.

Because these 1% kids are so special because they have high MAP-M or MAP-R scores? A test that is a measure of exposure and that can be easily prepped for? What utter BS. These are largely not Young Sheldons, just hardworking kids who have prepped for the selection criteria.

The reason you are having trouble understanding is that these kids are smarter than you, so you can't recognize their intelligence.

But clearly not smarter than you, with your ability to accurately assess the intelligence of anonymous posters on the Internet! Too bad your intelligence doesn't extend to being able to coherently refute the points being made.

[Anonymous]

38 pages of pissing back and forth... folks, if your kids are really smart, move to different school districts like howard county. if your kids are avg at best, stay in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[code]

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.

Why is your lab so dysfunctional that you insist on running it almost entirely by people with a Master degree even though the work doesn't require a college education?

Those students who “need” college classes should take them at the community college. We should not waste taxpayer money for a handful of students.

[Anonymous]

So what does this mean. Someone who lives in the Blair pyramid might be able to send their kids to Whitman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean. Someone who lives in the Blair pyramid might be able to send their kids to Whitman?

If they applied to and were accepted into a program at Whitman, yes. Or vice versa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean. Someone who lives in the Blair pyramid might be able to send their kids to Whitman?

If their kid is interested in and makes it into whatever regional program is at Whitman, yes. I highly doubt Whitman will host one of the high-demand criteria-based programs, though. Maybe the Leadership, Public Service, and Education one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean. Someone who lives in the Blair pyramid might be able to send their kids to Whitman?

If they applied to and were accepted into a program at Whitman, yes. Or vice versa.

I highly doubt they would put a regional program at Whitman. What they'll do is put it in Northwood or Einstein for that region. They'll make sure that none of the W schools will have a regional program. That said, I think overall, revamping the current system as it is today to this suggested one is a step towards the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[code]

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.

Why is your lab so dysfunctional that you insist on running it almost entirely by people with a Master degree even though the work doesn't require a college education?

Those students who “need” college classes should take them at the community college. We should not waste taxpayer money for a handful of students.

The state pays for their classes at MC so your tax dollars are used either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean. Someone who lives in the Blair pyramid might be able to send their kids to Whitman?

Gasp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean. Someone who lives in the Blair pyramid might be able to send their kids to Whitman?

If their kid is interested in and makes it into whatever regional program is at Whitman, yes. I highly doubt Whitman will host one of the high-demand criteria-based programs, though. Maybe the Leadership, Public Service, and Education one?

Whitman already has this as a countywide program: Leadership Academy for Social Justice (LASJ) at Whitman HS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kww20_552tnY8jPTKhnjI04ZxBF-m66zk6RPJOea8R0/preview?tab=t.0