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

[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?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Read back through the thread. There’s no mention of SMCS in particular in prior posts. PP mentioned current magnet programs and RMIB. This is a thread about humanities programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?"

Read back through the thread. There’s no mention of SMCS in particular in prior posts. PP mentioned current magnet programs and RMIB. This is a thread about humanities programs.

+1 SCMS parents are SO ready to jump into any thread to argue about their precious program, which is reflected in how MCPS treats those programs (remaining criteria based) compared to the programs aimed at kids whose strengths lie in the Humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anyone planning to give public comment on this at the Board meeting next Thursday? Sign-up opens tomorrow: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1x2ueQf1NtpqK2nSc-2hRnTODUVCSNtEmr-XnqpVGTFw/closedform#responses

[Anonymous]

I’m confused is SMCS Poolesville now with Ecology or SMCs criteria and Ecology interest based?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused is SMCS Poolesville now with Ecology or SMCs criteria and Ecology interest based?

It’s confusing. It looks like ecology is being incorporated into SMCS and will remain criteria based?

[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.

The same 90th percentile kids who are mostly left out of those programs today, since the programs are mostly taking the top 1%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused is SMCS Poolesville now with Ecology or SMCs criteria and Ecology interest based?

It’s confusing. It looks like ecology is being incorporated into SMCS and will remain criteria based?

That's what it looks like to me too. My guess is they don't want to get rid of Global Ecology but also don't want to replicate it 5 more times so they're framing it that way and leaving it for that region only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused is SMCS Poolesville now with Ecology or SMCs criteria and Ecology interest based?

It’s confusing. It looks like ecology is being incorporated into SMCS and will remain criteria based?

That's what it looks like to me too. My guess is they don't want to get rid of Global Ecology but also don't want to replicate it 5 more times so they're framing it that way and leaving it for that region only.

If it’s being subsumed into SMCS then it will no longer exist. They’ll just add a few environmental classes, if that. GE is supposed to be science + humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused is SMCS Poolesville now with Ecology or SMCs criteria and Ecology interest based?

It’s confusing. It looks like ecology is being incorporated into SMCS and will remain criteria based?

That's what it looks like to me too. My guess is they don't want to get rid of Global Ecology but also don't want to replicate it 5 more times so they're framing it that way and leaving it for that region only.

If it’s being subsumed into SMCS then it will no longer exist. They’ll just add a few environmental classes, if that. GE is supposed to be science + humanities.

That’s how I read it too. They’ll keep it in form but not substance. So sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?"

Read back through the thread. There’s no mention of SMCS in particular in prior posts. PP mentioned current magnet programs and RMIB. This is a thread about humanities programs.

+1 SCMS parents are SO ready to jump into any thread to argue about their precious program, which is reflected in how MCPS treats those programs (remaining criteria based) compared to the programs aimed at kids whose strengths lie in the Humanities.

They want support for a program that only has a few hundred kids... probably not going to happen.