Program analysis webinars

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

You are forgetting the First Law of DCUM. Everything bad is done to DCC. Everything good is done for a W school. Facts don't matter.

Eh tbf I also see the opposite perspective from some people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

This is so silly. I could go and list a bunch of schools with a higher FARMS rate and more non white students than Einstein. You’ve lost the plot. All schools will get programs. All students will have the ability to apply to whatever programs they wish. Some will not even have criteria or requirements. You are not looking at the bigger picture at all. And by the way, you don’t even know if you will be zoned for Einstein or wherever because no one knows what the boundaries will be.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

You’ve invented this large local set aside. That is fan fic at this point.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.

I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.

Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.

And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Agreed.

Agree with every word, especially the additional funding needed for building and sustaining these new programs are going to be spending mostly to bussing and less to teacher training, resource acquisition, according CO cost estimation slides and Bethesda magazine article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of geniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.

I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.

Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.

And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.

This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.

What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB?

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

You’ve invented this large local set aside. That is fan fic at this point.

Nope, they have repeatedly talked about local set-asides. In the example in their latest Board presentation it was about 1/3 but I've heard mention of larger set-asides too.

That example also talked about there only being about 50-60 seats per grade for the rest of the region. So basically maybe 15-20 kids per grade from each DCC school could get into the IB or humanities programs (or less if significant numbers of Whitman kids apply.) Meanwhile, on top of the disproportionate number of BCC kids who get into the magnets, it's likely that hundreds of non-magnet BCC kids will also benefit from the strong teachers and classes that will be located at their school (while a school like Einstein will likely lose a large share of their top 10-20% highest-achieving kids to academic magnets at other schools.) Not sure how any objective analysis of this doesn't come to the conclusion that BCC wins and Einstein loses here.

(And no, Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are not the poorest schools in the county, they're around average, more-or-leas. But they are objectively significantly poorer and less white than BCC.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

You’ve invented this large local set aside. That is fan fic at this point.

Nope, they have repeatedly talked about local set-asides. In the example in their latest Board presentation it was about 1/3 but I've heard mention of larger set-asides too.

That example also talked about there only being about 50-60 seats per grade for the rest of the region. So basically maybe 15-20 kids per grade from each DCC school could get into the IB or humanities programs (or less if significant numbers of Whitman kids apply.) Meanwhile, on top of the disproportionate number of BCC kids who get into the magnets, it's likely that hundreds of non-magnet BCC kids will also benefit from the strong teachers and classes that will be located at their school (while a school like Einstein will likely lose a large share of their top 10-20% highest-achieving kids to academic magnets at other schools.) Not sure how any objective analysis of this doesn't come to the conclusion that BCC wins and Einstein loses here.

(And no, Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are not the poorest schools in the county, they're around average, more-or-leas. But they are objectively significantly poorer and less white than BCC.)

A disproportionate quota for students of the host school seems so deeply unfair and inequitable to me, especially as you point out, students who aren't in the formal program could in many cases still benefit from the classes and teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

You’ve invented this large local set aside. That is fan fic at this point.

Nope, they have repeatedly talked about local set-asides. In the example in their latest Board presentation it was about 1/3 but I've heard mention of larger set-asides too.

That example also talked about there only being about 50-60 seats per grade for the rest of the region. So basically maybe 15-20 kids per grade from each DCC school could get into the IB or humanities programs (or less if significant numbers of Whitman kids apply.) Meanwhile, on top of the disproportionate number of BCC kids who get into the magnets, it's likely that hundreds of non-magnet BCC kids will also benefit from the strong teachers and classes that will be located at their school (while a school like Einstein will likely lose a large share of their top 10-20% highest-achieving kids to academic magnets at other schools.) Not sure how any objective analysis of this doesn't come to the conclusion that BCC wins and Einstein loses here.

(And no, Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are not the poorest schools in the county, they're around average, more-or-leas. But they are objectively significantly poorer and less white than BCC.)

There are no solid numbers on set asides because the teams putting this together are not even totally sure about this themselves. Whitman families, for the most part, could afford to live in every part of the BCC zone but did not choose to. If IB had been a factor they would’ve bought there. Very few Whitman kids choose to go to any magnets or other programs. Northwood kids also do not choose to attend criteria based magnet programs in large numbers. Nor do BCC kids. Many of these kids are high achieving and choose their home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

The IB/Humanities pairing would be more compelling if all the regions had that set up. It’s only being done that way at Watkins Mill, BCC, and RM. All the other regions have humanities and IB at separate schools.