Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

Fun fact: The BCC educational foundation pours a quarter million dollars into supporting students every year.

Whatever programs end up at BCC, they’ll automatically be better than the same programs in other regions. Parents will flock to that region or other regions where schools have tons of outside money to support programs. The regions where no schools have massive educational foundations or six-figure PTA budgets? They’re on their own.

How long before upcounty regions become economic dead zones because no one wants to live or build or open a business in the regions with weakest high school programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

Thanks. This is compelling. What is a good fix in your mind? It seems to me that an easy solution would be to place ht regional IB program at Einstein.

I would support that. Since BCC has its own IB program that as I understand is quite successful, they could probably sustain it without making it a regional program. By putting the regional program in Einstein you actually increase access to IB rather than taking away access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

Fun fact: The BCC educational foundation pours a quarter million dollars into supporting students every year.

Whatever programs end up at BCC, they’ll automatically be better than the same programs in other regions. Parents will flock to that region or other regions where schools have tons of outside money to support programs. The regions where no schools have massive educational foundations or six-figure PTA budgets? They’re on their own.

How long before upcounty regions become economic dead zones because no one wants to live or build or open a business in the regions with weakest high school programs?

Is that from donations yearly or investments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious the kids who don’t have enough math to graduate… how did they wind up being so advanced? What were your elementary/middle schools? My kids are zoned for Einstein and have done highest level offered at Elementary and Middle School (Sligo) so come in two years ahead. Einstein has AP Calc AB and BC and AP Stats as well as IB math. How many MCPS kids really need more? What percentage even take MVC?

Ib math is good but not equal to ap. Some of the feeder schools allow algebra in 6th. So, it goes, algebra, geometry, algebra2, precal, calc bc, multivariable calc, then linear algebra or stats is or something else. Einstein slows down kids pushing ab, then bc but a few just do bc. More would do mvc if offered. Right now parents have to drive to Wheaton or students go to MC with driving themselves or parents. We have some classes with ten or less students so it doesn’t make sense not to offer it.

This math progression seems insanely accelerated. I went to a W school and graduated in the early 2000s. I did algebra in 8th grade and geometry in 9th. That track was the accelerated track at the time. If you did algebra in 9th grade you were on level. If you did algebra in 7th grade you were super gifted. I’d estimate that there were maybe 10-20 kids in the last category per grade in high school. In 9th grade taking geometry I was probably one of about 60-70% with ~30-40% in algebra in 9th grade.

Those who did geometry in 9th typically did AP calculus in 12th grade and lots like myself did AP statistics as a second math class. Those who did geometry in 8th grade (those 10-20 kids) were in my BC Calculus class as 11th graders and took MVC as 12th graders.

When did algebra in 6th become the norm?

Algebra is 7th or 8th is the normal track. It doesn't matter what you did in the 2000s or what we did, its what's going on now and what's happening at the different schools. And, the fact that some schools offer way more and other schools offer very little when all our kids deserve the same opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

Thanks. This is compelling. What is a good fix in your mind? It seems to me that an easy solution would be to place ht regional IB program at Einstein.

How about asking families and doing a survey. I wouldn't keep IB at Einstein. Few kids graduate with an IB degree and then they don't have enough AP classes which many kids prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious the kids who don’t have enough math to graduate… how did they wind up being so advanced? What were your elementary/middle schools? My kids are zoned for Einstein and have done highest level offered at Elementary and Middle School (Sligo) so come in two years ahead. Einstein has AP Calc AB and BC and AP Stats as well as IB math. How many MCPS kids really need more? What percentage even take MVC?

Ib math is good but not equal to ap. Some of the feeder schools allow algebra in 6th. So, it goes, algebra, geometry, algebra2, precal, calc bc, multivariable calc, then linear algebra or stats is or something else. Einstein slows down kids pushing ab, then bc but a few just do bc. More would do mvc if offered. Right now parents have to drive to Wheaton or students go to MC with driving themselves or parents. We have some classes with ten or less students so it doesn’t make sense not to offer it.

This math progression seems insanely accelerated. I went to a W school and graduated in the early 2000s. I did algebra in 8th grade and geometry in 9th. That track was the accelerated track at the time. If you did algebra in 9th grade you were on level. If you did algebra in 7th grade you were super gifted. I’d estimate that there were maybe 10-20 kids in the last category per grade in high school. In 9th grade taking geometry I was probably one of about 60-70% with ~30-40% in algebra in 9th grade.

Those who did geometry in 9th typically did AP calculus in 12th grade and lots like myself did AP statistics as a second math class. Those who did geometry in 8th grade (those 10-20 kids) were in my BC Calculus class as 11th graders and took MVC as 12th graders.

When did algebra in 6th become the norm?

This is the Einstein MVC poster. I am not sure what to make of the rest of posts about Einstein due to them.

Normal algebra is 7-8th grade. We are talking about advanced kids and most do it in 7th except some of the feeder schools that are lottery-based in allow it in 6th as an incentive to go to that school and boost test scores. It's not the norm but it's an option now. Again it goes to all schools not offering the same things and no consistency between the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

Thanks. This is compelling. What is a good fix in your mind? It seems to me that an easy solution would be to place ht regional IB program at Einstein.

How about asking families and doing a survey. I wouldn't keep IB at Einstein. Few kids graduate with an IB degree and then they don't have enough AP classes which many kids prefer.

I think the reason few kids get an IB degree at Einstein is because it is very difficult to fit all required IB courses in along with VAPA or the other academies (and VAPA is more popular than IB). My kid prefers IB to AP classes, but isn’t on the IB diploma track because it was too difficult to schedule. Many of his classes are only offered one period per day and many IB classes are two year sessions. If IB was used as a draw to Einstein outside of the performing arts, IB would do well at Einstein. Einstein does not lack motivated kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

Thanks. This is compelling. What is a good fix in your mind? It seems to me that an easy solution would be to place ht regional IB program at Einstein.

How about asking families and doing a survey. I wouldn't keep IB at Einstein. Few kids graduate with an IB degree and then they don't have enough AP classes which many kids prefer.

I think the reason few kids get an IB degree at Einstein is because it is very difficult to fit all required IB courses in along with VAPA or the other academies (and VAPA is more popular than IB). My kid prefers IB to AP classes, but isn’t on the IB diploma track because it was too difficult to schedule. Many of his classes are only offered one period per day and many IB classes are two year sessions. If IB was used as a draw to Einstein outside of the performing arts, IB would do well at Einstein. Einstein does not lack motivated kids.

Some teachers discourage IB as some are double periods and its hard to fit things in. IB has its place but Einstein would be stronger with more AP's and other advanced classes. I don't think that many would come for IB. I think they would come for arts or stem or better, both. There are plenty of smart kids as well as capable teachers to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

I’m not sure who’s conducting the analysis for these studies, but this really doesn’t make sense to me. Why does BCC get a humanities program when Northwood already has a Law Academy, Environmental Academy, Music and Dance Academy, and a Humanities and Media Academy—all related to the humanities? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give that to Northwood?


Why would Einstein have an education program when there’s so little interest that the school was considering cutting it? The Visual and Performing Arts Academy at Einstein houses the majority of its students—why not make that one unified program and give Einstein IB as well? If someone actually took the time to analyze this base off student interest , there wouldn’t be so much panic but instead we got some lazy, last minute slop.

So why would giving Einstein a Regional Visual and Performing Arts and IB Magnet make it more appealing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please try to keep this thread about the second round options. There are other threads about the regional program plan.

The second round options impact families who are being switched schools. The second round reduces student numbers, which is good but reduces staffing which leads to cuts in courses. Some schools only have the bare minimum.

Is size of Eisntein different in the first round vs the second round?

Yes

The concern with the combination of the boundary study and the program analysis is that based on the proposals, Einstein will have fewer students, which is good in that it relieves overcrowding, but has the additional effect of taking teachers and other staff away from the school because staff are allocated based on enrollment.

This concerns people because Einstein currently does not offer a wide variety of coursework, especially in STEM, so fewer teachers would make this worse. There are kids that can't actually fulfill their graduation requirements at Einstein because they came in advanced in math and there aren't enough math classes. In addition, the proposed boundaries increase Einstein's FARMS rate somewhat, which is not necessarily a bad thing by itself but in combination with lower enrollment may decrease the percentage of high resourced students that come to the school prepared for advanced STEM classes.

In addition, the current DCC system brings in kids from throughout the DCC schools that are interested in the arts to participate in Einstein's VAPA program. However, without the DCC, there may be less interest in VAPA from the local population, and that might also lead to reduced offerings at Einstein. MCPS has proposed keeping a visual arts magnet and an interest based education program at Einstein, but the visual arts magnet will become less prestigious since it will be regional and countywide. Einstein does currently have an education program (education as in courses on becoming an educator), but there was limited interest in that and they were actually proposing eliminating it.

On top of all this, they are proposing putting an IB magnet and a humanities magnet at BCC. Einstein currently has an IB program, but it is very small. With the regional IB at BCC, this has a very real risk of drawing too many IB kids away from Einstein to sustain Einstein's local program.

In the meantime, BCC will not just keep but expand its existing IB program, add a criteria based humanities program, and keep its other local programming like its own education program and its engineering program neither of which will be impacted by any of these changes since their boundaries aren't changing and they don't rely on out of boundary students to sustain their existing programming.
repor

I’m not sure who’s conducting the analysis for these studies, but this really doesn’t make sense to me. Why does BCC get a humanities program when Northwood already has a Law Academy, Environmental Academy, Music and Dance Academy, and a Humanities and Media Academy—all related to the humanities? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give that to Northwood?


Why would Einstein have an education program when there’s so little interest that the school was considering cutting it? The Visual and Performing Arts Academy at Einstein houses the majority of its students—why not make that one unified program and give Einstein IB as well? If someone actually took the time to analyze this base off student interest , there wouldn’t be so much panic but instead we got some lazy, last minute slop.

So why would giving Einstein a Regional Visual and Performing Arts and IB Magnet make it more appealing?

It draws a lot of arts kids and many of the arts kids do multiple art - both the visual and performing arts so it would be a shame to move one, as then kids don't have access to both. I don't agree with the IB Magnet but understand why they made the comment.

If you take away the arts and IB and only give a teacher's program, there is zero appeal to go to Einstein. No one wanted the teachers' program and they were transitioning it away due to lack of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how do the people newly zoned for Woodward feel? Is it about right? Which options are preferable?

WJ FAMS goes down in most potions.

Poverty will be concentrated in Woodward. Woodward will have around twice the FARMS rate of WJ.

Not a good outcome but better than earlier proposed options.

Under the current options, the FARMS rate at Woodward will be in the same ballpark as BCC, only being a tad higher. The original options all had Woodward with much higher FARMS rates, but current options only put Woodward at 27 to 31% FARMS. Also keep in mind, this isn’t factoring in the amount of parents currently zoned to DCC schools who would bring their kids back to public after being rezoned to Woodward, which would likely depress the projected FARMS rate at Woodward even more. The disparity between both WJ & Woodward and DCC schools is going to be much more significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

Might as well give up on trying to equalize demographics unless you want super long bus rides for poor kids.

Or change housing policy.

No, they could have done better instead of making everything worse. There is zero excuse, by the way, for 2 schools within a mile of each other to have such vastly different FARMS rates

Yes, a good obsrvation.

WJ and Woodward is less than mile and yet double the FARMS rate in Woodward compared to WJ.

A very poor job. Some time it's not possible to balance evrything, but that's not the case here.

Lol, so funny how many of you care about inequities in FARMS rates when it comes to WJ vs Woodward and act like your kids are being rezoned to a Title I school when the disparity between WJ and the DCC has been far more massive for years and nobody has cared. I don’t think it’s a good thing that WJ is decreasing in its FARMS rate, but the difference in FARMS rate between WJ and Woodward likely won’t be that huge. In most options, Woodward sits at 27% FARMS (and it will probably be lower than that because of private school unenrollment in the DCC areas moved to Woodward). Even the difference in FARMS rates between BCC and Whitman is worse than that between WJ/Woodward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious the kids who don’t have enough math to graduate… how did they wind up being so advanced? What were your elementary/middle schools? My kids are zoned for Einstein and have done highest level offered at Elementary and Middle School (Sligo) so come in two years ahead. Einstein has AP Calc AB and BC and AP Stats as well as IB math. How many MCPS kids really need more? What percentage even take MVC?

Ib math is good but not equal to ap. Some of the feeder schools allow algebra in 6th. So, it goes, algebra, geometry, algebra2, precal, calc bc, multivariable calc, then linear algebra or stats is or something else. Einstein slows down kids pushing ab, then bc but a few just do bc. More would do mvc if offered. Right now parents have to drive to Wheaton or students go to MC with driving themselves or parents. We have some classes with ten or less students so it doesn’t make sense not to offer it.

This math progression seems insanely accelerated. I went to a W school and graduated in the early 2000s. I did algebra in 8th grade and geometry in 9th. That track was the accelerated track at the time. If you did algebra in 9th grade you were on level. If you did algebra in 7th grade you were super gifted. I’d estimate that there were maybe 10-20 kids in the last category per grade in high school. In 9th grade taking geometry I was probably one of about 60-70% with ~30-40% in algebra in 9th grade.

Those who did geometry in 9th typically did AP calculus in 12th grade and lots like myself did AP statistics as a second math class. Those who did geometry in 8th grade (those 10-20 kids) were in my BC Calculus class as 11th graders and took MVC as 12th graders.

When did algebra in 6th become the norm?

This is the Einstein MVC poster. I am not sure what to make of the rest of posts about Einstein due to them.

Normal algebra is 7-8th grade. We are talking about advanced kids and most do it in 7th except some of the feeder schools that are lottery-based in allow it in 6th as an incentive to go to that school and boost test scores. It's not the norm but it's an option now. Again it goes to all schools not offering the same things and no consistency between the schools.

No one should offer mvc in high school. That would make it equal. You’re right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the Best. Res Ipsa Loquitur. B = Best

The best for whom? Not for taxpayers.

Sure it is. Those in the Option B zone for WJ certainly pay more taxes and dealt with over crowded WJ for decades+. Time to alleviate it. And more development coming under master plan. DCC pay less and get more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the Best. Res Ipsa Loquitur. B = Best

The best for whom? Not for taxpayers.

Sure it is. Those in the Option B zone for WJ certainly pay more taxes and dealt with over crowded WJ for decades+. Time to alleviate it. And more development coming under master plan. DCC pay less and get more

All four options alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Only Option D alleviates almost every school's.