MCPS ending Loiderman/Parkland/Argyle magnets?

[Anonymous]

+1000. Loiederman is extraordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loiderman is a joke. One in 25 kids in any class is interested in the arts. One in 25 kids doodles. Most of them are there to get away from their home schools.

Loiederman has the best teachers and principal in mcps and it is truly an arts school. In these posts people mostly talk about the theater program, but what other mcps middle school has multiple, leveled dance classes, digital music, a capella groups etc. The kids absolutely choose Loiederman and it brings together a strong cohort of artsy kids. It would be a huge shame to get rid of it.

My child thrived there with other high achieving arts focused peers.

Question from an outsider who doesn't understand how exactly these three MS magnets function: I guess the regional model is not going to get rid of any of the existing MSs, but probably going to make them a normal local school with fixed boundaries. If this is the change that's going to happen, what's the impact to Loiderman (and the other two)? Are you mostly worried that some of the unique courses going to be taken away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they SHOULD end this program. Why would only a small area of the county have middle school choice? And why are we paying for bussing to multiple schools for one area.

I am an elementary school teacher at a school that feeds into this consortia. Many of the 5th graders do not like being forced to choose a program. They do not like leaving their friends. And when I drive to school it is absolutely ridiculous that one intersection has 3 bus stops- one for each school. The kids are told to wait on opposite corners for their bus. What a waste of transportation money.

Any child in the county can apply to the MSMC middle schools. Its a lottery.

I’m so tired of all the lotteries. I think it’s a way for MCPS to give the appearance of having both quality programming and equality but it actually works against that. They ration opportunities. They split kids up, and yes, I can’t imagine what they must be spending on wasteful transportation costs. Why can’t they just provide the same programs at all schools?

This exactly. They really need to focus on ensuring that home schools have good programming -- kids shouldn't have to lottery into another school to get a good basic education. But that is happening in way too much of the county.

These schools have the same academic curriculum as every other middle school. They add speciality focus classes to pull out of boundary students so the schools arent so poverty concentrated. If you did this in every school, it would not help balance FARMS rates because the rich kids would stay at their rich schools.

Why should parts of the county be receiving focused instruction when not everyone is? They need to make sure every middle school in Montgomery County is providing a sound education rather than focusing on making just a few superior. It is time for these programs to go.

Busing in kids who come from families that prioritize academics provides a good influence to lower SES kids who would not normally be exposed to such students. If MCPS really wants to help URM/lower SES students, they would continue these programs. You are who you surround yourself with.

Otherwise these academically talented students will stay within their higher SES bubble and continue their success there, no problem.

Guess who else also prioritizes education when they fully understand the stakes and have high expectations? URM and lower SES students/families.

I worked with URM youth. They are bright and know school is important but the action part can be lacking. What I see is they say school is important but then they focus on other things.

[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:I think they SHOULD end this program. Why would only a small area of the county have middle school choice? And why are we paying for bussing to multiple schools for one area.

I am an elementary school teacher at a school that feeds into this consortia. Many of the 5th graders do not like being forced to choose a program. They do not like leaving their friends. And when I drive to school it is absolutely ridiculous that one intersection has 3 bus stops- one for each school. The kids are told to wait on opposite corners for their bus. What a waste of transportation money.

Any child in the county can apply to the MSMC middle schools. Its a lottery.

I’m so tired of all the lotteries. I think it’s a way for MCPS to give the appearance of having both quality programming and equality but it actually works against that. They ration opportunities. They split kids up, and yes, I can’t imagine what they must be spending on wasteful transportation costs. Why can’t they just provide the same programs at all schools?

This exactly. They really need to focus on ensuring that home schools have good programming -- kids shouldn't have to lottery into another school to get a good basic education. But that is happening in way too much of the county.

These schools have the same academic curriculum as every other middle school. They add speciality focus classes to pull out of boundary students so the schools arent so poverty concentrated. If you did this in every school, it would not help balance FARMS rates because the rich kids would stay at their rich schools.

Right, that isn’t equal to other schools. Also, they pull wealthier students out of less wealthy schools, so it works both ways. I’ve seen this with the criteria magnets as well. It’s a shell game. MCPS could provide an equal education at local schools but chooses not to for some reason. Maybe because the small number of people who benefit from these programs are louder, I don’t know.

When you have populations with significantly higher needs but the same amount of funding at lower income schools, the education is not going to be "equal"

I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that I object to the false sense that MCPS provides equal opportunity for programming (criteria or choice programs) via lotteries, instead of providing the same programs at all schools. It’s an out for them, and it results in unequal access for students. Why can’t each elementary school have the CES curriculum? Why can’t each middle school have a STEM class? And put on a school play?

It sounds like you want every school to be the same even though the student populations they serve are vastly different. Why do you think this is going to work?

I don’t know why it wouldn’t work. It would certainly be fair. There are smart and high performing students at all schools, or did you not know that? My kids attend a title I elementary school. The school sends roughly 10 kids to the CES housed at a higher income school, leaving behind kids who qualified but didn’t get a seat. Why should MCPS take away from the peer cohort at a lower income school to put these kids at a higher income school? And why should the kids who didn’t get a seat not have access to the same curriculum? If MCPS would just offer the curriculum at the local school, then everyone who qualified could have access to the program (fairness), which would also be good for the school community. Instead they take from one school and give to another. Similar machinations happen at the middle school level through the lottery programs.

Starting at the elementary school level would be more beneficial than trying to bring different SES populations together at age 12. Growing up together in the same environment is important, but DCUM is against those type of boundary changes. It's so much more difficult to do starting in 6th grade.

MCPS does bring different SES populations together at ES through HS in some areas as much as they can. Some low SES areas are too isolated from areas where there are higher academically performing students and those are where there would need to be incentive to bring in these higher SES students. Hence the MSMC and other magnets.

Locked behind lotteries! And two points. There are higher academically performing students at all schools. Even lower income schools have some higher income families (MC or UMC), so there is an SES mix already. In my experience, the magnets specifically take higher income families out of these schools when they would otherwise stay.

Yes, lotteries are how you incentivize academically higher performing students to come to a higher poverty, more insular area like MSMC. MCPS cannot gerrymander higher SES students to mix with MSMC because the higher income areas are too far away. It is good for higher poverty area students to befriend higher resourced individuals so they are exposed to what is possible.

I am speaking of MSMC in particular—your scenario may apply to the CES model but not MSMC. For MSMC—from what I’ve seen—few would make the commute, but correct me if I’m wrong.

[Anonymous]

Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

+1 per the zoom info meeting this afternoon, at this time, MSMC is continuing as is. The current regional proposal is regarding HS, not MS. Any impacts to MSMC would be an issue after the HS regional model proposal has been dealt with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

+1 per the zoom info meeting this afternoon, at this time, MSMC is continuing as is. The current regional proposal is regarding HS, not MS. Any impacts to MSMC would be an issue after the HS regional model proposal has been dealt with.

Let's wait till Oct. 14 where MCPS is supposed to share the first update regarding future MS plan under the regional model. I believe there are a few zoom webminars in late Oct. for general audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

+1 per the zoom info meeting this afternoon, at this time, MSMC is continuing as is. The current regional proposal is regarding HS, not MS. Any impacts to MSMC would be an issue after the HS regional model proposal has been dealt with.

Let's wait till Oct. 14 where MCPS is supposed to share the first update regarding future MS plan under the regional model. I believe there are a few zoom webminars in late Oct. for general audience.

There are four for the HS: Oct 22 and 27 at 12pm and 6pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

+1 per the zoom info meeting this afternoon, at this time, MSMC is continuing as is. The current regional proposal is regarding HS, not MS. Any impacts to MSMC would be an issue after the HS regional model proposal has been dealt with.

Let's wait till Oct. 14 where MCPS is supposed to share the first update regarding future MS plan under the regional model. I believe there are a few zoom webminars in late Oct. for general audience.

There are four for the HS: Oct 22 and 27 at 12pm and 6pm.

Oh, so there's no webminar planned for MS program updates? I thought both are going to be shared...

[Anonymous]

My kids is in Parkland and this is the first I'm hearing of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids is in Parkland and this is the first I'm hearing of this.

Because this thread is an unsubstantiated rumor.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did it, but so far MCPS hasn't specifically said they will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

+1 per the zoom info meeting this afternoon, at this time, MSMC is continuing as is. The current regional proposal is regarding HS, not MS. Any impacts to MSMC would be an issue after the HS regional model proposal has been dealt with.

Let's wait till Oct. 14 where MCPS is supposed to share the first update regarding future MS plan under the regional model. I believe there are a few zoom webminars in late Oct. for general audience.

There are four for the HS: Oct 22 and 27 at 12pm and 6pm.

Oh, so there's no webminar planned for MS program updates? I thought both are going to be shared...

There's supposed to be a presentation to the BOE at a TBD October meeting on "Local HS Pathways, Additional Program Specifics, Middle School Proposal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

+1 per the zoom info meeting this afternoon, at this time, MSMC is continuing as is. The current regional proposal is regarding HS, not MS. Any impacts to MSMC would be an issue after the HS regional model proposal has been dealt with.

Let's wait till Oct. 14 where MCPS is supposed to share the first update regarding future MS plan under the regional model. I believe there are a few zoom webminars in late Oct. for general audience.

There are four for the HS: Oct 22 and 27 at 12pm and 6pm.

Forgot to add there is one today at 6pm zoom. It is a recap of the BOE slides. They do take questions and answer some at the very end, so if you already understand the slides, then you can tune in after 30 minutes to listen for any new info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just a friendly reminder that as of now, the notion that MCPS is getting rid of the MSMC is pure speculation.

It’s not. They are in the process of plying the high school model they have created to middle schools

[Anonymous]

Save Loiederman!