Parents of current 7th graders - what do you think about the 6 regional magnets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just get rid of all the magnet programs. It’s putting resources that other kids need into programs that help the already advantaged kids.

And yeah, I’m sure this will go over well with the striver parents around here.

I have a kid in one of the programs and he would do fine and have challenging and interesting classes at his home school.

100% this.

I have a strong academic kid and I would be happy if they had more rigorous classes for kids in every school, even if it is just a small number of kids that need it. Wealthy regions like Whitman should not be the only schools having such classes.

Spend that 8 million a year on creating such classes in every school, not on transportation to so many schools in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just get rid of all the magnet programs. It’s putting resources that other kids need into programs that help the already advantaged kids.

And yeah, I’m sure this will go over well with the striver parents around here.

I have a kid in one of the programs and he would do fine and have challenging and interesting classes at his home school.

100% this.

I have a strong academic kid and I would be happy if they had more rigorous classes for kids in every school, even if it is just a small number of kids that need it. Wealthy regions like Whitman should not be the only schools having such classes.

Spend that 8 million a year on creating such classes in every school, not on transportation to so many schools in the county.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the title says -

Which high school is your kid zoned for and what do you think about the 6 regional magnets and the placement of the program your kid would be interested in?

WJ/Woodward, and my thoughts are: 🤢🤮 it's horrible

I think WJ/Woodward is getting a bad deal with respect to IB. They are now being assigned to the regional program at Kennedy even though RM and BCC would both be closer. Wasn't the whole point of the model to provide programming closer to home?

What the BOE didn't want to tell you is that they're trying to also balance FARMS and racial demographics with these new regions too. They just don't want to say that out loud in this anti-DEI climate we're in under Trump.

By switching QO from region 6 to region 5, they are clearly showing that they don’t GAF to FARM balance.

They care in some regions more than others. But there's a reason they're didn't group BCC, Walter Johnson and Woodward together and instead split them between different regions that have higher FARMS and minority populations.

They are counting on QO kids going to Watkins Mill for IB and WJ/Woodward kids going to Kennedy. I'm not convinced that will happen.

Yeah, they want everyone to stay home, and that is what will happen. Segregation re-enforced.

Exactly. It's not going to happen. My kid's friend's sibling got in to Watkins Mill and then decided to go to the home school because of the bad rep that school has in MCPS. Now the other thread about Magruder tells me even Magruder would not be worth it.

Watkins Mill was and still is the ghetto in MCPS and that IB program there doesn't look like an incentive at all to go there.

Gaithersburg may have a standing chance in Region 5, but even then it's going to be a watered down STEM magnet with so many local seats, so that may not work either. The reason Blair was successful is because of the high academic criteria.

+1 I would not send my kids to Walkins Mill special program during to the poor reputation. We are home zoned to Quince Orchard. Quince Orchard is just okay, but at least it is considered the best high school in terms of overall reputation now in region 5. So bad it seems like my academically strong kid won't even have a chance for other opportunities(other than going other region 5 high school programs) , probably we may just stay at our home school. I hope that Quince Orchard local school program is strong enough to make up something. He won't attend high school till after 4 years in 2030 fall, hope everythings will be more clear by then.

[Anonymous]

I'm trying to understand the downsides of having a region without wealthy schools. I don't think families from wealthy schools are going to send their kids to a high FARMS school. We have seen this in the DCC where with school choice the demographics of the schools still match the home school area. We are zoned for Einstein and I would rather not be in a region with BCC or Whitman. It will just siphon off high performing kids who can do the commute and make it harder to offer advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are in a strong cluster with no desire or need to look outside of it for additional opportunities, little worried about the quality of schools being clustered with us. It looks like they will use us to prop up weaker schools which can only impact local peer group.

Tell me you're in RM or QO without telling me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an academically strong 7th grader and I support the new programs. Here’s why.

According to the October 3rd I Hate Politics podcast, when the popular SMCS programs began at Blair and Poolesville High Schools in the 1980s, the organizers had just 20 days to implement the program from scratch. The success of the program was attributed to focusing on gifted and talented testing. They accepted students as low as 54 percentile in academic performance and were still successful.

In contrast, MCPS has allocated two whole academic years, has historical information t guide them and has since shifted towards focusing instead on academic performance for criteria-based programs. I have no reason to believe that it isn’t possible to pull this off successfully.

Many parents and teachers point to MCPS in the past. However, I am confident in Taylor’s leadership so far. It is clear to me that he is listening and making intelligent, well thought-out choices for our district. He answered many of the questions asked here in the November 19th meeting with BOE.

I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but Poolesville SMCS opened in 2006 with the support of the Blair program. And the Blair program opened in 1985, but the program initial development started with a survey presented in 1982 followed by a task force that built all the plans before opening 3 years later. So opening a single magnet at Blair was a three year process and now they are planning to open new programs in every high school over less than two years. Also, it's great that Blair focused on gifted testing, but the county no longer uses gifted testing in their criteria.

This +1. The pp that this post responded to must not listen to that podcast carefully, or intentionally trying to spread wrong perspectives. Rome is not built in one day, nor did these two SMCS programs.

I am “the pp that [the] post responded to”. I went back and re-listened to the podcast to see where the discrepancy might be.

According to Eileen, MCPS had a meeting in January 1985 to look at what program would bring students into the Blair High School because it was not yet associated with high academic achievement. According to Bob who was collaborating with Eileen, back then teachers had more planning time and so they both spent over a hundred hours in each other’s classrooms. They then had about 20 paid days over the summer right before implementing it at Blair.

Bob started the Poolesville SMCS program and was involved in SMCS from the very start in 1985. It just wasn’t clear from the podcast that the programs were deployed 13 years from each other - Blair SMCS in 1985 with both coordinators and Poolesville SMCS in 2006 with Bob as coordinator so thank you to the poster who provided that clarification.

When asked about the feasibility of what MCPS is doing right now, they mentioned:

(1) Teacher quality: Teacher planning time was a core component as it allowed teachers to observe each other’s classrooms to determine which teacher was engaging to students, excited about their craft and willing to speak up;

(2) Student Quality: MCPS should “recreate” the Gifted and Talented Office and continue using Algebra I as a criterion and use essays that are done in-person to help weed out which students are passionate abd which ones are only indicating an interest because of a parent;

(3) Program Continuity and Flexibility: The dynamics of the program depend on continuity with teachers guiding students through how to do a presentation and work as a team and MCPS should trust teachers to adapt the program to current events

(4) Program Outcome: The main objective was for students to get into the college of their choice and the program coordinator felt it was successful at that

It would be good to highlight the areas where MCPS has departed from this approach and find out why.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that my point still stands that it did not take them long between deciding what programs to implement at Blair in January 1985 and full implementation from scratch at Blair by fall of 1985 and so I have have full faith and confidence that MCPS’ timeline is achievable.

Source: IHatePolitics.com

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an academically strong 7th grader and I support the new programs. Here’s why.

According to the October 3rd I Hate Politics podcast, when the popular SMCS programs began at Blair and Poolesville High Schools in the 1980s, the organizers had just 20 days to implement the program from scratch. The success of the program was attributed to focusing on gifted and talented testing. They accepted students as low as 54 percentile in academic performance and were still successful.

In contrast, MCPS has allocated two whole academic years, has historical information t guide them and has since shifted towards focusing instead on academic performance for criteria-based programs. I have no reason to believe that it isn’t possible to pull this off successfully.

Many parents and teachers point to MCPS in the past. However, I am confident in Taylor’s leadership so far. It is clear to me that he is listening and making intelligent, well thought-out choices for our district. He answered many of the questions asked here in the November 19th meeting with BOE.

I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but Poolesville SMCS opened in 2006 with the support of the Blair program. And the Blair program opened in 1985, but the program initial development started with a survey presented in 1982 followed by a task force that built all the plans before opening 3 years later. So opening a single magnet at Blair was a three year process and now they are planning to open new programs in every high school over less than two years. Also, it's great that Blair focused on gifted testing, but the county no longer uses gifted testing in their criteria.

This +1. The pp that this post responded to must not listen to that podcast carefully, or intentionally trying to spread wrong perspectives. Rome is not built in one day, nor did these two SMCS programs.

I am “the pp that [the] post responded to”. I went back and re-listened to the podcast to see where the discrepancy might be.

According to Eileen, MCPS had a meeting in January 1985 to look at what program would bring students into the Blair High School because it was not yet associated with high academic achievement. According to Bob who was collaborating with Eileen, back then teachers had more planning time and so they both spent over a hundred hours in each other’s classrooms. They then had about 20 paid days over the summer right before implementing it at Blair.

Bob started the Poolesville SMCS program and was involved in SMCS from the very start in 1985. It just wasn’t clear from the podcast that the programs were deployed 13 years from each other - Blair SMCS in 1985 with both coordinators and Poolesville SMCS in 2006 with Bob as coordinator so thank you to the poster who provided that clarification.

When asked about the feasibility of what MCPS is doing right now, they mentioned:

(1) Teacher quality: Teacher planning time was a core component as it allowed teachers to observe each other’s classrooms to determine which teacher was engaging to students, excited about their craft and willing to speak up;

(2) Student Quality: MCPS should “recreate” the Gifted and Talented Office and continue using Algebra I as a criterion and use essays that are done in-person to help weed out which students are passionate abd which ones are only indicating an interest because of a parent;

(3) Program Continuity and Flexibility: The dynamics of the program depend on continuity with teachers guiding students through how to do a presentation and work as a team and MCPS should trust teachers to adapt the program to current events

(4) Program Outcome: The main objective was for students to get into the college of their choice and the program coordinator felt it was successful at that

It would be good to highlight the areas where MCPS has departed from this approach and find out why.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that my point still stands that it did not take them long between deciding what programs to implement at Blair in January 1985 and full implementation from scratch at Blair by fall of 1985 and so I have have full faith and confidence that MCPS’ timeline is achievable.

Source: IHatePolitics.com

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? They are planning to implement dozens of programs at dozens of high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the downsides of having a region without wealthy schools. I don't think families from wealthy schools are going to send their kids to a high FARMS school. We have seen this in the DCC where with school choice the demographics of the schools still match the home school area. We are zoned for Einstein and I would rather not be in a region with BCC or Whitman. It will just siphon off high performing kids who can do the commute and make it harder to offer advanced classes.

Another Einstein parent who agrees. Also, I don’t want my kid at Whitman or even BCC! I considered and rejected those environments when we bought a house, and I don’t think ant my STEM kid to have to choose between rigor and that kind of place.

I am also upset that they are screaming “equity” while, in our proposed region, putting academic programs in rich white schools and music/dance in the poorer Black and Brown schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the downsides of having a region without wealthy schools. I don't think families from wealthy schools are going to send their kids to a high FARMS school. We have seen this in the DCC where with school choice the demographics of the schools still match the home school area. We are zoned for Einstein and I would rather not be in a region with BCC or Whitman. It will just siphon off high performing kids who can do the commute and make it harder to offer advanced classes.

Another Einstein parent who agrees. Also, I don’t want my kid at Whitman or even BCC! I considered and rejected those environments when we bought a house, and I don’t think ant my STEM kid to have to choose between rigor and that kind of place.

I am also upset that they are screaming “equity” while, in our proposed region, putting academic programs in rich white schools and music/dance in the poorer Black and Brown schools.

+1 they are not approaching this from an equity lens. They are putting programs in based on what schools already have which will just exacerbate inequities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an academically strong 7th grader and I support the new programs. Here’s why.

According to the October 3rd I Hate Politics podcast, when the popular SMCS programs began at Blair and Poolesville High Schools in the 1980s, the organizers had just 20 days to implement the program from scratch. The success of the program was attributed to focusing on gifted and talented testing. They accepted students as low as 54 percentile in academic performance and were still successful.

In contrast, MCPS has allocated two whole academic years, has historical information t guide them and has since shifted towards focusing instead on academic performance for criteria-based programs. I have no reason to believe that it isn’t possible to pull this off successfully.

Many parents and teachers point to MCPS in the past. However, I am confident in Taylor’s leadership so far. It is clear to me that he is listening and making intelligent, well thought-out choices for our district. He answered many of the questions asked here in the November 19th meeting with BOE.

I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but Poolesville SMCS opened in 2006 with the support of the Blair program. And the Blair program opened in 1985, but the program initial development started with a survey presented in 1982 followed by a task force that built all the plans before opening 3 years later. So opening a single magnet at Blair was a three year process and now they are planning to open new programs in every high school over less than two years. Also, it's great that Blair focused on gifted testing, but the county no longer uses gifted testing in their criteria.

This +1. The pp that this post responded to must not listen to that podcast carefully, or intentionally trying to spread wrong perspectives. Rome is not built in one day, nor did these two SMCS programs.

I am “the pp that [the] post responded to”. I went back and re-listened to the podcast to see where the discrepancy might be.

According to Eileen, MCPS had a meeting in January 1985 to look at what program would bring students into the Blair High School because it was not yet associated with high academic achievement. According to Bob who was collaborating with Eileen, back then teachers had more planning time and so they both spent over a hundred hours in each other’s classrooms. They then had about 20 paid days over the summer right before implementing it at Blair.

Bob started the Poolesville SMCS program and was involved in SMCS from the very start in 1985. It just wasn’t clear from the podcast that the programs were deployed 13 years from each other - Blair SMCS in 1985 with both coordinators and Poolesville SMCS in 2006 with Bob as coordinator so thank you to the poster who provided that clarification.

When asked about the feasibility of what MCPS is doing right now, they mentioned:

(1) Teacher quality: Teacher planning time was a core component as it allowed teachers to observe each other’s classrooms to determine which teacher was engaging to students, excited about their craft and willing to speak up;

(2) Student Quality: MCPS should “recreate” the Gifted and Talented Office and continue using Algebra I as a criterion and use essays that are done in-person to help weed out which students are passionate abd which ones are only indicating an interest because of a parent;

(3) Program Continuity and Flexibility: The dynamics of the program depend on continuity with teachers guiding students through how to do a presentation and work as a team and MCPS should trust teachers to adapt the program to current events

(4) Program Outcome: The main objective was for students to get into the college of their choice and the program coordinator felt it was successful at that

It would be good to highlight the areas where MCPS has departed from this approach and find out why.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that my point still stands that it did not take them long between deciding what programs to implement at Blair in January 1985 and full implementation from scratch at Blair by fall of 1985 and so I have have full faith and confidence that MCPS’ timeline is achievable.

Source: IHatePolitics.com

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? They are planning to implement dozens of programs at dozens of high schools.

Why can’t they?
(1) It only took less than a year to implement Blair SMCS from scratch
(2) Starting in 2006 with the implementation of Poolesville HS SMCS, MCPS has almost two decades of experience branching off new programs
(3) Dr. Taylor appears to have an excellent track record so far when it comes to listening, trying to engage with the community and responding to concerns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an academically strong 7th grader and I support the new programs. Here’s why.

According to the October 3rd I Hate Politics podcast, when the popular SMCS programs began at Blair and Poolesville High Schools in the 1980s, the organizers had just 20 days to implement the program from scratch. The success of the program was attributed to focusing on gifted and talented testing. They accepted students as low as 54 percentile in academic performance and were still successful.

In contrast, MCPS has allocated two whole academic years, has historical information t guide them and has since shifted towards focusing instead on academic performance for criteria-based programs. I have no reason to believe that it isn’t possible to pull this off successfully.

Many parents and teachers point to MCPS in the past. However, I am confident in Taylor’s leadership so far. It is clear to me that he is listening and making intelligent, well thought-out choices for our district. He answered many of the questions asked here in the November 19th meeting with BOE.

I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but Poolesville SMCS opened in 2006 with the support of the Blair program. And the Blair program opened in 1985, but the program initial development started with a survey presented in 1982 followed by a task force that built all the plans before opening 3 years later. So opening a single magnet at Blair was a three year process and now they are planning to open new programs in every high school over less than two years. Also, it's great that Blair focused on gifted testing, but the county no longer uses gifted testing in their criteria.

This +1. The pp that this post responded to must not listen to that podcast carefully, or intentionally trying to spread wrong perspectives. Rome is not built in one day, nor did these two SMCS programs.

I am “the pp that [the] post responded to”. I went back and re-listened to the podcast to see where the discrepancy might be.

According to Eileen, MCPS had a meeting in January 1985 to look at what program would bring students into the Blair High School because it was not yet associated with high academic achievement. According to Bob who was collaborating with Eileen, back then teachers had more planning time and so they both spent over a hundred hours in each other’s classrooms. They then had about 20 paid days over the summer right before implementing it at Blair.

Bob started the Poolesville SMCS program and was involved in SMCS from the very start in 1985. It just wasn’t clear from the podcast that the programs were deployed 13 years from each other - Blair SMCS in 1985 with both coordinators and Poolesville SMCS in 2006 with Bob as coordinator so thank you to the poster who provided that clarification.

When asked about the feasibility of what MCPS is doing right now, they mentioned:

(1) Teacher quality: Teacher planning time was a core component as it allowed teachers to observe each other’s classrooms to determine which teacher was engaging to students, excited about their craft and willing to speak up;

(2) Student Quality: MCPS should “recreate” the Gifted and Talented Office and continue using Algebra I as a criterion and use essays that are done in-person to help weed out which students are passionate abd which ones are only indicating an interest because of a parent;

(3) Program Continuity and Flexibility: The dynamics of the program depend on continuity with teachers guiding students through how to do a presentation and work as a team and MCPS should trust teachers to adapt the program to current events

(4) Program Outcome: The main objective was for students to get into the college of their choice and the program coordinator felt it was successful at that

It would be good to highlight the areas where MCPS has departed from this approach and find out why.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that my point still stands that it did not take them long between deciding what programs to implement at Blair in January 1985 and full implementation from scratch at Blair by fall of 1985 and so I have have full faith and confidence that MCPS’ timeline is achievable.

Source: IHatePolitics.com

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? They are planning to implement dozens of programs at dozens of high schools.

Why can’t they?
(1) It only took less than a year to implement Blair SMCS from scratch
(2) Starting in 2006 with the implementation of Poolesville HS SMCS, MCPS has almost two decades of experience branching off new programs
(3) Dr. Taylor appears to have an excellent track record so far when it comes to listening, trying to engage with the community and responding to concerns

When I listen to Taylor I get a very, very different impression than you. He seems like a snake oil salesman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an academically strong 7th grader and I support the new programs. Here’s why.

According to the October 3rd I Hate Politics podcast, when the popular SMCS programs began at Blair and Poolesville High Schools in the 1980s, the organizers had just 20 days to implement the program from scratch. The success of the program was attributed to focusing on gifted and talented testing. They accepted students as low as 54 percentile in academic performance and were still successful.

In contrast, MCPS has allocated two whole academic years, has historical information t guide them and has since shifted towards focusing instead on academic performance for criteria-based programs. I have no reason to believe that it isn’t possible to pull this off successfully.

Many parents and teachers point to MCPS in the past. However, I am confident in Taylor’s leadership so far. It is clear to me that he is listening and making intelligent, well thought-out choices for our district. He answered many of the questions asked here in the November 19th meeting with BOE.

I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but Poolesville SMCS opened in 2006 with the support of the Blair program. And the Blair program opened in 1985, but the program initial development started with a survey presented in 1982 followed by a task force that built all the plans before opening 3 years later. So opening a single magnet at Blair was a three year process and now they are planning to open new programs in every high school over less than two years. Also, it's great that Blair focused on gifted testing, but the county no longer uses gifted testing in their criteria.

This +1. The pp that this post responded to must not listen to that podcast carefully, or intentionally trying to spread wrong perspectives. Rome is not built in one day, nor did these two SMCS programs.

I am “the pp that [the] post responded to”. I went back and re-listened to the podcast to see where the discrepancy might be.

According to Eileen, MCPS had a meeting in January 1985 to look at what program would bring students into the Blair High School because it was not yet associated with high academic achievement. According to Bob who was collaborating with Eileen, back then teachers had more planning time and so they both spent over a hundred hours in each other’s classrooms. They then had about 20 paid days over the summer right before implementing it at Blair.

Bob started the Poolesville SMCS program and was involved in SMCS from the very start in 1985. It just wasn’t clear from the podcast that the programs were deployed 13 years from each other - Blair SMCS in 1985 with both coordinators and Poolesville SMCS in 2006 with Bob as coordinator so thank you to the poster who provided that clarification.

When asked about the feasibility of what MCPS is doing right now, they mentioned:

(1) Teacher quality: Teacher planning time was a core component as it allowed teachers to observe each other’s classrooms to determine which teacher was engaging to students, excited about their craft and willing to speak up;

(2) Student Quality: MCPS should “recreate” the Gifted and Talented Office and continue using Algebra I as a criterion and use essays that are done in-person to help weed out which students are passionate abd which ones are only indicating an interest because of a parent;

(3) Program Continuity and Flexibility: The dynamics of the program depend on continuity with teachers guiding students through how to do a presentation and work as a team and MCPS should trust teachers to adapt the program to current events

(4) Program Outcome: The main objective was for students to get into the college of their choice and the program coordinator felt it was successful at that

It would be good to highlight the areas where MCPS has departed from this approach and find out why.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that my point still stands that it did not take them long between deciding what programs to implement at Blair in January 1985 and full implementation from scratch at Blair by fall of 1985 and so I have have full faith and confidence that MCPS’ timeline is achievable.

Source: IHatePolitics.com

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? They are planning to implement dozens of programs at dozens of high schools.

Why can’t they?
(1) It only took less than a year to implement Blair SMCS from scratch
(2) Starting in 2006 with the implementation of Poolesville HS SMCS, MCPS has almost two decades of experience branching off new programs
(3) Dr. Taylor appears to have an excellent track record so far when it comes to listening, trying to engage with the community and responding to concerns

Huh? They created one program and you call that "decades of experience" gmafb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the downsides of having a region without wealthy schools. I don't think families from wealthy schools are going to send their kids to a high FARMS school. We have seen this in the DCC where with school choice the demographics of the schools still match the home school area. We are zoned for Einstein and I would rather not be in a region with BCC or Whitman. It will just siphon off high performing kids who can do the commute and make it harder to offer advanced classes.

Another Einstein parent who agrees. Also, I don’t want my kid at Whitman or even BCC! I considered and rejected those environments when we bought a house, and I don’t think ant my STEM kid to have to choose between rigor and that kind of place.

I am also upset that they are screaming “equity” while, in our proposed region, putting academic programs in rich white schools and music/dance in the poorer Black and Brown schools.

+1 they are not approaching this from an equity lens. They are putting programs in based on what schools already have which will just exacerbate inequities.

Parent engagement is tied to equity because program implementation depends on the number of interested students. Parents would have to know about the programs, find out whether their child would be a good fit and then apply by the deadline. Right now, even regions are a bit of a stretch unless MCPS starts automatically inviting students then leave it to the parents to accept or decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an academically strong 7th grader and I support the new programs. Here’s why.

According to the October 3rd I Hate Politics podcast, when the popular SMCS programs began at Blair and Poolesville High Schools in the 1980s, the organizers had just 20 days to implement the program from scratch. The success of the program was attributed to focusing on gifted and talented testing. They accepted students as low as 54 percentile in academic performance and were still successful.

In contrast, MCPS has allocated two whole academic years, has historical information t guide them and has since shifted towards focusing instead on academic performance for criteria-based programs. I have no reason to believe that it isn’t possible to pull this off successfully.

Many parents and teachers point to MCPS in the past. However, I am confident in Taylor’s leadership so far. It is clear to me that he is listening and making intelligent, well thought-out choices for our district. He answered many of the questions asked here in the November 19th meeting with BOE.

I admit I haven't listened to the podcast, but Poolesville SMCS opened in 2006 with the support of the Blair program. And the Blair program opened in 1985, but the program initial development started with a survey presented in 1982 followed by a task force that built all the plans before opening 3 years later. So opening a single magnet at Blair was a three year process and now they are planning to open new programs in every high school over less than two years. Also, it's great that Blair focused on gifted testing, but the county no longer uses gifted testing in their criteria.

This +1. The pp that this post responded to must not listen to that podcast carefully, or intentionally trying to spread wrong perspectives. Rome is not built in one day, nor did these two SMCS programs.

I am “the pp that [the] post responded to”. I went back and re-listened to the podcast to see where the discrepancy might be.

According to Eileen, MCPS had a meeting in January 1985 to look at what program would bring students into the Blair High School because it was not yet associated with high academic achievement. According to Bob who was collaborating with Eileen, back then teachers had more planning time and so they both spent over a hundred hours in each other’s classrooms. They then had about 20 paid days over the summer right before implementing it at Blair.

Bob started the Poolesville SMCS program and was involved in SMCS from the very start in 1985. It just wasn’t clear from the podcast that the programs were deployed 13 years from each other - Blair SMCS in 1985 with both coordinators and Poolesville SMCS in 2006 with Bob as coordinator so thank you to the poster who provided that clarification.

When asked about the feasibility of what MCPS is doing right now, they mentioned:

(1) Teacher quality: Teacher planning time was a core component as it allowed teachers to observe each other’s classrooms to determine which teacher was engaging to students, excited about their craft and willing to speak up;

(2) Student Quality: MCPS should “recreate” the Gifted and Talented Office and continue using Algebra I as a criterion and use essays that are done in-person to help weed out which students are passionate abd which ones are only indicating an interest because of a parent;

(3) Program Continuity and Flexibility: The dynamics of the program depend on continuity with teachers guiding students through how to do a presentation and work as a team and MCPS should trust teachers to adapt the program to current events

(4) Program Outcome: The main objective was for students to get into the college of their choice and the program coordinator felt it was successful at that

It would be good to highlight the areas where MCPS has departed from this approach and find out why.

Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that my point still stands that it did not take them long between deciding what programs to implement at Blair in January 1985 and full implementation from scratch at Blair by fall of 1985 and so I have have full faith and confidence that MCPS’ timeline is achievable.

Source: IHatePolitics.com

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? They are planning to implement dozens of programs at dozens of high schools.

Why can’t they?
(1) It only took less than a year to implement Blair SMCS from scratch
(2) Starting in 2006 with the implementation of Poolesville HS SMCS, MCPS has almost two decades of experience branching off new programs
(3) Dr. Taylor appears to have an excellent track record so far when it comes to listening, trying to engage with the community and responding to concerns

Huh? They created one program and you call that "decades of experience" gmafb

It’s not just one program. MCPS has now expanded to 35 different programs over almost two decades, so they have the data to know what successful implementation does and does not look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to understand the downsides of having a region without wealthy schools. I don't think families from wealthy schools are going to send their kids to a high FARMS school. We have seen this in the DCC where with school choice the demographics of the schools still match the home school area. We are zoned for Einstein and I would rather not be in a region with BCC or Whitman. It will just siphon off high performing kids who can do the commute and make it harder to offer advanced classes.

Another Einstein parent who agrees. Also, I don’t want my kid at Whitman or even BCC! I considered and rejected those environments when we bought a house, and I don’t think ant my STEM kid to have to choose between rigor and that kind of place.

I am also upset that they are screaming “equity” while, in our proposed region, putting academic programs in rich white schools and music/dance in the poorer Black and Brown schools.

Are the SMCS and CAP programs at Blair examples of academic programs at rich, white schools? Same with Biomedical at Einstein?