Gifted & talented programs and magnet school opportunities in the public schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To OP: do you believe your kid(s) is truly gifted, talented, and self-determined? If yes, choose FCPS, and try to push them to TJ. If they can't get in, several FCPS HSs are still pretty good and competitive, but TJ is a a whole new level.

If you believe your kids are somewhat gifted but not one of a kind, choose Howard county. Marriotts Ridge, Centennial or Clarksville are all very descent.

If you believe your kids are probably just high-achiever, and hard to tell the long-term trend, and you want them to enjoy a happy easygoing life and you are satisfied with UMD, you can try Bethesda or Potomac.

We moved to MoCo for the true jewelry on the top: the magnet/RMIB. Our elder one is lucky enough to ride through it with maximizing their education experience. We observed the consistent decline of education over the past 15 years or so under the name of so many popular words. Now these only jewels are going to be removed soon. Don't come for a good education for gifted kids. Period.

The very top, talented, gifted kids in the area are in MoCo.

I said, those very top talented and gifted kids in MCPS were identified and very well served by the magnet pathway in the past, but less and less since the lottery. I know quite some families moved to MoCo intentionally for these GT opportunities. Now the entire new regional model is going to kill the HS merit-based magnet program completely. Families with gifted kids will fleet away. FCPS serves these kids well, and HCPS does an overall good job. MCPS is a sinking ship.

Folks need to stop all the fearful conjecture. There is no indication at this point that the magnets will not continue to be successful in the new proposed regional model. In fact it has consistently been said there will continue to be criteria based and interest based options. Further while folks are trying to fawn over FCPS and HCPS, guess what there are families in those districts that complain about them just like folks complain about MCPS. The grass isn’t always greener somewhere else.

CES and MS criteria-based magnets have already been watered down since the inception of the lottery. Those of us who have kids there now and had kids there previously can attest to the change in content and stanrdards. I would absolutely be worried that they will be further watered down as MCPS makes more changes if I had a child who will be eligible once the changes are in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The magnet programs at all levels are outstanding. Unfortunately, for ES and MS you can only access them through a lottery so the vast majority of qualified students can’t join the programs, which have limited seats.

MCPS is about to change the upper ES/MS math pathways soon, so that’s up in the air.

And they are completely changing MS and HS magnets, as well, probably making more seats available but somewhat watered down programs, staff, and student criteria. No one knows what the outcomes will be, so any info we have on current programs will be obsolete by Fall 2027.

The curricular opportunities and enriched/accelerated offerings at regular home schools exist, but don’t really meet the needs of gifted students much of the time, particularly in middle school which is the weak link.

Thx. I am the OP and this lottery system for G&T really worries me.

You can look at Fairfax. At the elementary level, everyone identified is served, but look at the AAPP forum - lots of complaints about it being “watered down.”

I don’t know anywhere that does it just right - especially since every parent’s definition of just right is “serving my kid but not any kids who might be below them.”

The MCPS model says everyone who meets the central review criteria (different from gifted) is served-- some in a regional program and some at their local schools. That's what FFX does too. The difference is that in FFX there are tiers or levels and in MCPS all who meet the criteria are put in a pool and those who get the regional program are selected by lottery and local schools are hit or miss in providing something "different" for identified kids.

I'd say that pretty universally gen-ed programs in local middle schools are bad at meeting the needs of gifted kids. That's why everyone in clamoring to get into Eastern and Takoma. We would rather have our kids served at home schools, but even the classes intended for gifted learners like HIGH and AIM are not particularly challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GT identification (SIPPI) is state-mandated, but matching local programming often is insufficient and certainly is inconsistent (funding, training, diverse needs, local school administration priorities).
-> Communities with active familiy involvement sometimes see cohorted treatment, and better in-class differentiation is more available where there are larger cohorts of high-ability (and/or highly prepped) students; this persists to availability of higher-level HS courses (and availability of grade-skipping class placement at a few ESs & MSs, along with certain path-favoring electives at a few MSs) due to an MCPS policy of allowing community pull/local-school administration decision to determine availability of such.

There are not enough magnet seats, generally, to match the population in need (or with interest).
-> A lottery is utilized for ES & MS magnets, and for some interest-based HS magnet programs.

Local norming of test scores are used for criteria-based ES & MS magnet lottery pool inclusion.
-> A higher-flying student at a higher-FARMS school may have a better chance of being included in the pool as an edge case if they have managed to be exposed (via outside enrichment or otherwise) to higher-level content despite the presumed more difficult cohort.

SIPPI/GT identification is a separate process from lottery qualification.
-> There is overlap, but no assurance of magnet lottery pool inclusion from GT identification.

Criteria-based HS programs can select students.
-> With the above-noted scarcity, the resulting competition favors those receiving outside enrichment, those having received better instruction with the above-noted locally dependent cohorting and/or those lucky enough to have been selected by lottery for earlier magnet programming.

There are local-only ES 4th/5th CES magnets (previously mentioned).
-> This confers a higher chance of being selected by lottery.

There are (some) local set-asides for ES/MS magnets.
-> This also confers a higher chance of being selected by lottery.

The current HS/MS program analysis aims to increase seats and distribute programs across the county, but commute times/transportation cost & related impacts (e.g., time for alternate activities, encumbered social interaction) will remain a consideration for many; in parallel, there is a boundary study for HS & MS that could impact the majority of the county; programs/boundaries/set-asides/selection paradigms are subject to change, but often jealously guarded by local/attending communities.
-> Location may matter, but pending or future changes may confound education-related domicile planning.

There are not local set-asides for CES -- at least there are not for CCES.

The four local-only CESs effectively are local set-asides, though these were mentioned in the list ahead of the call-out of local set-asides. Not all ES magnet programs are Centers for Enriched Studies, however.

Language immersion can be seen as desirable, allowing a student to stretch even if the level of content taught is supposed to be equivalent to that provided in the standard English curriculum. Not all immersion magnets have local set-asides, but Potomac ES's Chinese (Mandarin) Immersion program only has allowed consideration of out-of-bounds students if not all slots are filled locally -- the most generous local set-aside remaining in MCPS.

Language immersion is not a magnet. It is interest-based.

CES is a criteria-based magnet, in that there are standards for being placed in the lottery.

Magnet just means a school that has programs to attract students from a wider area. The programs don't have to be criteria-based.

[Anonymous]

My kid will be a 6th grader in Fall 2027. What is the change that PP are talking about here about MS magnet or program change? Can someone summarize for me please? He will be in CES as a 4th grader in Fall 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid will be a 6th grader in Fall 2027. What is the change that PP are talking about here about MS magnet or program change? Can someone summarize for me please? He will be in CES as a 4th grader in Fall 2025.

They are looking at changes to magnet programming at the HS & MS level. Nothing is yet certain, but...

They have put forward a notional 6-region breakout of magnet programming at the HS level.

They have said they will be looking at MS magnets, as well, but have not put forward any similar notional draft.

They have indicated that any rearrangement of magnet programming will inform decisions about the current MS/HS boundary studies. The timeline for the latter appears to be why the timeline for the former seems rushed.

They aim to expand seats and improve access (making them closer, on average), but they have been reticent in relation to many concerns expressed here, at meetings and elsewhere, including:

What will happen to current rising 8th and rising 5th graders that are assigned to magnets (interest- or criteria-based) or assigned to other schools as part of a consortium? These will be rising 10th and rising 7th graders in 2027, and prior indication from MCPS was that only rising 8th, 11th and 12th graders would be able to stay at their current school if their home address was reassingned in the boundary study. (As a rising 6th grader in 2027, your DC presumably would be eligible, for all of their MS experience, for assignment to whichever MS magnet any adopted paradigm offered.)

Will MCPS be able to preserve the excellence of programs like RMIB & Blair SMCS in a regionalized model? Some feel there are not enough students of high ability to support one program in each region or that necessary teaching talent would be too scarce.

Which programs are likely to go away? Will those chosen to be closed be continued until graduation for any then-currently enrolled?

Will any current programs be moved to different schools? Will programs be placed within regions to encourage economic/demographic diversity, as many had been?

Will programs across regions offer reasonably similar experiences, or will some regions offer pale shadows of desired programs in other regions? This might be due to difficulty staffing newer magnets or to community pull dictating regular availability of higher-level magnet coursework in one region but not another.

For that matter, will the advanced classes that are supposed to be available system-wide at home schools really be available system-wide at meaningful levels? The same community-pull paradigm could see there remain a have and have-not dichotomy among schools when it comes to offerings like Multivariable Calculus (typically taken immediately after first-year college Calc, often accessed as an AP by junior year in MCPS).

Can MCPS create reasonably balanced regions that are logistically feasible? Will the larger number of magnets requiring transportation be offset by relative proximity from cost and communte time perspectives? What is the likely fiscal impact of the overall plan, and, if very large, would that tend to undermine the stated aims such that alternative solutions should be considered?

Have outreach/communication and community stakeholder involvement been adequate? (We need the rolling-on-the-floor-crying emoji for this one.)

I'm sure there are many more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid will be a 6th grader in Fall 2027. What is the change that PP are talking about here about MS magnet or program change? Can someone summarize for me please? He will be in CES as a 4th grader in Fall 2025.

They have not yet made proposals for Ms. that is coming this fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GT identification (SIPPI) is state-mandated, but matching local programming often is insufficient and certainly is inconsistent (funding, training, diverse needs, local school administration priorities).
-> Communities with active familiy involvement sometimes see cohorted treatment, and better in-class differentiation is more available where there are larger cohorts of high-ability (and/or highly prepped) students; this persists to availability of higher-level HS courses (and availability of grade-skipping class placement at a few ESs & MSs, along with certain path-favoring electives at a few MSs) due to an MCPS policy of allowing community pull/local-school administration decision to determine availability of such.

There are not enough magnet seats, generally, to match the population in need (or with interest).
-> A lottery is utilized for ES & MS magnets, and for some interest-based HS magnet programs.

Local norming of test scores are used for criteria-based ES & MS magnet lottery pool inclusion.
-> A higher-flying student at a higher-FARMS school may have a better chance of being included in the pool as an edge case if they have managed to be exposed (via outside enrichment or otherwise) to higher-level content despite the presumed more difficult cohort.

SIPPI/GT identification is a separate process from lottery qualification.
-> There is overlap, but no assurance of magnet lottery pool inclusion from GT identification.

Criteria-based HS programs can select students.
-> With the above-noted scarcity, the resulting competition favors those receiving outside enrichment, those having received better instruction with the above-noted locally dependent cohorting and/or those lucky enough to have been selected by lottery for earlier magnet programming.

There are local-only ES 4th/5th CES magnets (previously mentioned).
-> This confers a higher chance of being selected by lottery.

There are (some) local set-asides for ES/MS magnets.
-> This also confers a higher chance of being selected by lottery.

The current HS/MS program analysis aims to increase seats and distribute programs across the county, but commute times/transportation cost & related impacts (e.g., time for alternate activities, encumbered social interaction) will remain a consideration for many; in parallel, there is a boundary study for HS & MS that could impact the majority of the county; programs/boundaries/set-asides/selection paradigms are subject to change, but often jealously guarded by local/attending communities.
-> Location may matter, but pending or future changes may confound education-related domicile planning.

There are not local set-asides for CES -- at least there are not for CCES.

The four local-only CESs effectively are local set-asides, though these were mentioned in the list ahead of the call-out of local set-asides. Not all ES magnet programs are Centers for Enriched Studies, however.

Language immersion can be seen as desirable, allowing a student to stretch even if the level of content taught is supposed to be equivalent to that provided in the standard English curriculum. Not all immersion magnets have local set-asides, but Potomac ES's Chinese (Mandarin) Immersion program only has allowed consideration of out-of-bounds students if not all slots are filled locally -- the most generous local set-aside remaining in MCPS.

Language immersion is not a magnet. It is interest-based.

CES is a criteria-based magnet, in that there are standards for being placed in the lottery.

As a poster a few back noted, one-way immersion programs are offered on a magnet basis. Though there are not criteria for admission (generally beginning in Kindergarten, so hard to do), many see these as opportunities for enrichment, even as the nature of that enrichment might be different from that offered at a CES. Preserving such opportunity mostly to those in-bounds to Potomac ES seems...inequitable.

The criteria for CES lottery inclusion is the same (after local norming based on FARMS rate) for both regional and local-only CESs. The ratio of seats to population at these local-only CESs is much higher, and that also seems...inequitable.

[Anonymous]

I would just send them to private school. MCPS is not what it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would just send them to private school. MCPS is not what it used to be.

Private schools are not what they claim to be. They still cannot compete with MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To OP: do you believe your kid(s) is truly gifted, talented, and self-determined? If yes, choose FCPS, and try to push them to TJ. If they can't get in, several FCPS HSs are still pretty good and competitive, but TJ is a a whole new level.

If you believe your kids are somewhat gifted but not one of a kind, choose Howard county. Marriotts Ridge, Centennial or Clarksville are all very descent.

If you believe your kids are probably just high-achiever, and hard to tell the long-term trend, and you want them to enjoy a happy easygoing life and you are satisfied with UMD, you can try Bethesda or Potomac.

We moved to MoCo for the true jewelry on the top: the magnet/RMIB. Our elder one is lucky enough to ride through it with maximizing their education experience. We observed the consistent decline of education over the past 15 years or so under the name of so many popular words. Now these only jewels are going to be removed soon. Don't come for a good education for gifted kids. Period.

The very top, talented, gifted kids in the area are in MoCo.

I said, those very top talented and gifted kids in MCPS were identified and very well served by the magnet pathway in the past, but less and less since the lottery. I know quite some families moved to MoCo intentionally for these GT opportunities. Now the entire new regional model is going to kill the HS merit-based magnet program completely. Families with gifted kids will fleet away. FCPS serves these kids well, and HCPS does an overall good job. MCPS is a sinking ship.

Folks need to stop all the fearful conjecture. There is no indication at this point that the magnets will not continue to be successful in the new proposed regional model. In fact it has consistently been said there will continue to be criteria based and interest based options. Further while folks are trying to fawn over FCPS and HCPS, guess what there are families in those districts that complain about them just like folks complain about MCPS. The grass isn’t always greener somewhere else.

If you have ever had a kid who had been able to fill their entire junior and senior years with those higher-level magnet classes, you'll know how naive you are about regional magnet can be comparable. No they can barely meet the mere minimum even the region include one of the "W" school: you simply cannot find those good teachers anywhere else in MCPS.

For TJ, since I've mentored quite a few TJ students during the past decade, I can see at least based on the ones I've supervised for conducting research, that program is not diluted for top students. Blair and TJ students are comparable in capability, self-motivation and aptitudes, but Blair will loose quickly once it becomes regional.

Those who believe regional magnets can match the success of countywide programs are either out of touch or just wishful thinking. Countywide magnets bring together top talent, specialized staff, and diverse peers to create the depth and rigor gifted students need. Regional models may offer access, but they dilute quality and weaken the very structure that makes these programs effective. It’s way better to just expand Blair magnet than splitting to many regions.

Your point is invalid and wrong because Blair is a regional magnet, and is the best, most successful magnet in the area.

More than half of the county’s high schools ,16 out of 25, feed into the Blair Magnet Program. That means the program is truly countywide in reach, not limited to a small geographic area. Breaking the county into just 6 smaller regions would represent a fundamentally different structure, narrowing access and reducing the broad representation.

It still not a countywide magnet. It's a regional magnet whether it it consists of 16, 8 or 6 schools.
I think I get it now...many are screaming "the sky is falling", "the program will be watered down" because Blair won't be in their regions. They're going to lose access to Blair.

You really don't.

I think the PP is right. Many are freaking out because Blair is not in their region.

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would just send them to private school. MCPS is not what it used to be.

+1. Money finds solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid will be a 6th grader in Fall 2027. What is the change that PP are talking about here about MS magnet or program change? Can someone summarize for me please? He will be in CES as a 4th grader in Fall 2025.

They are looking at changes to magnet programming at the HS & MS level. Nothing is yet certain, but...

They have put forward a notional 6-region breakout of magnet programming at the HS level.

They have said they will be looking at MS magnets, as well, but have not put forward any similar notional draft.

They have indicated that any rearrangement of magnet programming will inform decisions about the current MS/HS boundary studies. The timeline for the latter appears to be why the timeline for the former seems rushed.

They aim to expand seats and improve access (making them closer, on average), but they have been reticent in relation to many concerns expressed here, at meetings and elsewhere, including:

What will happen to current rising 8th and rising 5th graders that are assigned to magnets (interest- or criteria-based) or assigned to other schools as part of a consortium? These will be rising 10th and rising 7th graders in 2027, and prior indication from MCPS was that only rising 8th, 11th and 12th graders would be able to stay at their current school if their home address was reassingned in the boundary study. (As a rising 6th grader in 2027, your DC presumably would be eligible, for all of their MS experience, for assignment to whichever MS magnet any adopted paradigm offered.)

Will MCPS be able to preserve the excellence of programs like RMIB & Blair SMCS in a regionalized model? Some feel there are not enough students of high ability to support one program in each region or that necessary teaching talent would be too scarce.

Which programs are likely to go away? Will those chosen to be closed be continued until graduation for any then-currently enrolled?

Will any current programs be moved to different schools? Will programs be placed within regions to encourage economic/demographic diversity, as many had been?

Will programs across regions offer reasonably similar experiences, or will some regions offer pale shadows of desired programs in other regions? This might be due to difficulty staffing newer magnets or to community pull dictating regular availability of higher-level magnet coursework in one region but not another.

For that matter, will the advanced classes that are supposed to be available system-wide at home schools really be available system-wide at meaningful levels? The same community-pull paradigm could see there remain a have and have-not dichotomy among schools when it comes to offerings like Multivariable Calculus (typically taken immediately after first-year college Calc, often accessed as an AP by junior year in MCPS).

Can MCPS create reasonably balanced regions that are logistically feasible? Will the larger number of magnets requiring transportation be offset by relative proximity from cost and communte time perspectives? What is the likely fiscal impact of the overall plan, and, if very large, would that tend to undermine the stated aims such that alternative solutions should be considered?

Have outreach/communication and community stakeholder involvement been adequate? (We need the rolling-on-the-floor-crying emoji for this one.)

I'm sure there are many more.

The folks who think there are not enough students to support regional models are loony. Each of the current top programs gets waay more applications than they have seats. Further, for many of the magnet program we are not talking about a huge number of seats. Like 100 or so. Even if the program only took 75 kids that would be fine as it would be the size of several private school classes in the area. Anyone who thinks there are not 75 above average kids in each region really needs to get out of their bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid will be a 6th grader in Fall 2027. What is the change that PP are talking about here about MS magnet or program change? Can someone summarize for me please? He will be in CES as a 4th grader in Fall 2025.

They are looking at changes to magnet programming at the HS & MS level. Nothing is yet certain, but...

They have put forward a notional 6-region breakout of magnet programming at the HS level.

They have said they will be looking at MS magnets, as well, but have not put forward any similar notional draft.

They have indicated that any rearrangement of magnet programming will inform decisions about the current MS/HS boundary studies. The timeline for the latter appears to be why the timeline for the former seems rushed.

They aim to expand seats and improve access (making them closer, on average), but they have been reticent in relation to many concerns expressed here, at meetings and elsewhere, including:

What will happen to current rising 8th and rising 5th graders that are assigned to magnets (interest- or criteria-based) or assigned to other schools as part of a consortium? These will be rising 10th and rising 7th graders in 2027, and prior indication from MCPS was that only rising 8th, 11th and 12th graders would be able to stay at their current school if their home address was reassingned in the boundary study. (As a rising 6th grader in 2027, your DC presumably would be eligible, for all of their MS experience, for assignment to whichever MS magnet any adopted paradigm offered.)

Will MCPS be able to preserve the excellence of programs like RMIB & Blair SMCS in a regionalized model? Some feel there are not enough students of high ability to support one program in each region or that necessary teaching talent would be too scarce.

Which programs are likely to go away? Will those chosen to be closed be continued until graduation for any then-currently enrolled?

Will any current programs be moved to different schools? Will programs be placed within regions to encourage economic/demographic diversity, as many had been?

Will programs across regions offer reasonably similar experiences, or will some regions offer pale shadows of desired programs in other regions? This might be due to difficulty staffing newer magnets or to community pull dictating regular availability of higher-level magnet coursework in one region but not another.

For that matter, will the advanced classes that are supposed to be available system-wide at home schools really be available system-wide at meaningful levels? The same community-pull paradigm could see there remain a have and have-not dichotomy among schools when it comes to offerings like Multivariable Calculus (typically taken immediately after first-year college Calc, often accessed as an AP by junior year in MCPS).

Can MCPS create reasonably balanced regions that are logistically feasible? Will the larger number of magnets requiring transportation be offset by relative proximity from cost and communte time perspectives? What is the likely fiscal impact of the overall plan, and, if very large, would that tend to undermine the stated aims such that alternative solutions should be considered?

Have outreach/communication and community stakeholder involvement been adequate? (We need the rolling-on-the-floor-crying emoji for this one.)

I'm sure there are many more.

The folks who think there are not enough students to support regional models are loony. Each of the current top programs gets waay more applications than they have seats. Further, for many of the magnet program we are not talking about a huge number of seats. Like 100 or so. Even if the program only took 75 kids that would be fine as it would be the size of several private school classes in the area. Anyone who thinks there are not 75 above average kids in each region really needs to get out of their bubble.

I agree.

However, MCPS should be addressing the concern with responses based in more meaningful analysis of the data they have on hand. Their effort thus far, showing the spread of populations achieving a 3.0 and a 4.0, is rather loosely supportive, confounded by grade inflation, differences among courses taken, etc.

Of course, the kinds of analyses that would tend to support increased seating & broader dispersion of magnets would be things which would evidence realities on which MCPS has long sought to avoid shedding light. Things like:

Numbers & proportions of students from the various regions with academic profiles equivalent or very proximate to those selected for the most rigorous magnets (and not just those who applied, as many may not have done so, either due to distance or to preference for the local HS). This would tend to show the paucity of seats available compared to the population in need, and might have to be presented with previously unpublicized average magnet profile information, which would then tend to result in target-oriented prepping among populations with greater likelihood of doing so.

Numbers of those with profiles that compare on par with or favorably to broader magnet program profiles but who are unserved at their local HS by courses of similar rigor to that available at magnets. This would more completely evidence any current have/have-not dichotomy.

[Anonymous]

Agree. MCPS is not doing itself any favor is by pointing to the number of students who have 3+ or 4+ on the 5-point grading scale in a district wuth so much grade inflation, that’s not impressive at all. They should pull MAP and MCAP scores to show those who are high enough to meet current admission standards for the most competitive magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would ignore any information about middle or high school programs at this point because everything is under review and could change in 2027.

I'd expect less merit and more lottery opportunities to help close the gap.