Gifted & talented programs and magnet school opportunities in the public schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would ignore any information about middle or high school programs at this point because everything is under review and could change in 2027.

I'd expect less merit and more lottery opportunities to help close the gap.

… to help APPEAR to close the gap
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. MCPS is not doing itself any favor is by pointing to the number of students who have 3+ or 4+ on the 5-point grading scale in a district wuth so much grade inflation, that’s not impressive at all. They should pull MAP and MCAP scores to show those who are high enough to meet current admission standards for the most competitive magnets.

+1 both of the PPs are so right about abominable use of data and lack of ability to formulate the strongest arguments in support of decisions. If the target is 75 students for the most popular magnets, then MCPS would be going from 200 seats in the county to 450.

[Anonymous]

As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

Disagree. top 1% operates on a different level to top 5%.

I have one of each. They don't operate the same academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

Disagree. top 1% operates on a different level to top 5%.

I have one of each. They don't operate the same academically.

I think the point is that we shouldn't screw over the 5 perfect to serve the 1 percent. The point of public education isn't to maximize the potential of a tiny handful of kids. It is to serve as many as possible as appropriately as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

Expansion and maintaining the existing program in its current model shouldn’t be an either-or choice. They’re not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

If we are going to make an economic/real estate argument, it makes FAR more sense to expand the magnets than to assume that people are moving here on the off chance that their child will be one of the 200 kids per year who get into these "well-established programs."

But you forget people have choices. When MCPS has worse reputation than FCPS or HCPS, why would they want to come to MCPS? Think about prince george county which has easy commute to DC but people do not prefer to move there.

Whether MPCS has two STEM magnets or six STEM magnets is not going to make the difference. It's just not. It might for you personally, but that's not the typical approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

I agree more access is needed. But why can’t MCPS preserve a well established program and allow top 1% continue to access it while having other top 5% programs. It’s a mistake to kill these nationally recognized successful programs just for equity. Many people chose to live in Montgomery county due to these programs.

We don't know that any programs will be "killed."

Limiting access to only a few schools is essentially killing the program. In a few years, they won’t be able to compete at the state or national level, the very competitions that built their reputation. With the top 1% of students spread across six regions, it’s possible that none of the MCPS magnet programs will be able to compete with FCPS, or even HCPS in the future.

Did it kill the program when Blair stopped being countywide when Poolesville's program opened? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

Disagree. top 1% operates on a different level to top 5%.

I have one of each. They don't operate the same academically.

This +1. I have one of each. Totally different level of mental and academic needs. We should sacrifice one for another. MCPS earns its national reputation and attractiveness by serving the top 1% well. It can and should keep the successful model while expand some courses to regional models.

As I mentioned previously, half of the Blair magnet courses can only enroll 10~20 students per year because they are so challenging, but every year there are always 10-20 kids that find these courses engaging, fun and learning (not the same 10-20 kids, a lot of them finds what they want to do as early as middle school age and dedicated to take all courses possible at one specific major). Regional model will not have capacity to open these courses nor have enough students register, so these courses will disappear permanently if county-wide program is canceled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As predicted, OP's question has become yet another debate on expanding the magnets, so I may as well weigh in.

I think expanding access to the HS magnets is a good thing, EVEN IF it means some incremental drop in "rigor" in the formerly county-wide magnets.

Right now, MCPS has an approach that seeks to max out the potential of a handful of kids while leaving the rest with almost no access to differentiated or enriched instruction until 11th grade.

This is the wrong approach for a public school system, particularly one with as many high achievers as MCPS has.

There's no denying that expanding access from the "top" 1% to the "top" 5% will make some sort of a difference, but not a meaningful one and certainly not one that should stop MCPS from expanding the programs.

Disagree. top 1% operates on a different level to top 5%.

I have one of each. They don't operate the same academically.

This +1. I have one of each. Totally different level of mental and academic needs. We should sacrifice one for another. MCPS earns its national reputation and attractiveness by serving the top 1% well. It can and should keep the successful model while expand some courses to regional models.

As I mentioned previously, half of the Blair magnet courses can only enroll 10~20 students per year because they are so challenging, but every year there are always 10-20 kids that find these courses engaging, fun and learning (not the same 10-20 kids, a lot of them finds what they want to do as early as middle school age and dedicated to take all courses possible at one specific major). Regional model will not have capacity to open these courses nor have enough students register, so these courses will disappear permanently if county-wide program is canceled.

Sorry, typo: should -> shouldn't