Impact of CAP/Poolesville Humanities/etc not being criteria-based anymore?

[Anonymous]

If only people cared this much about the bottom 90%. I swear it more about protecting their school’s reputation. Funny part is most of the people with resources don’t give a damn about these schools or programs which eludes to the clout they are chasing is all in their heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If only people cared this much about the bottom 90%. I swear it more about protecting their school’s reputation. Funny part is most of the people with resources don’t give a damn about these schools or programs which eludes to the clout they are chasing is all in their heads.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

Also, the Earth’s surface is flat in some places. Planet Earth is not flat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

MCPS presented a slideshow that had all Humanities programs as interest-based. So, you are correct that it is not adopted, but DCUM is the first place I've seen pushback. The Board certainly did not push back. I find it ironic that the school board leapt into action this week when the TPMS magnet busses were messed up, but have spent years ignoring the other ways in which MCPS is failing high achievers (and potential high achievers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

MCPS presented a slideshow that had all Humanities programs as interest-based. So, you are correct that it is not adopted, but DCUM is the first place I've seen pushback. The Board certainly did not push back. I find it ironic that the school board leapt into action this week when the TPMS magnet busses were messed up, but have spent years ignoring the other ways in which MCPS is failing high achievers (and potential high achievers).

Because they are self-aware that they can only work on things that are achievable. For other things like enhance the education quality, they know there’s no meaning to push back. The results are settled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

MCPS presented a slideshow that had all Humanities programs as interest-based. So, you are correct that it is not adopted, but DCUM is the first place I've seen pushback. The Board certainly did not push back. I find it ironic that the school board leapt into action this week when the TPMS magnet busses were messed up, but have spent years ignoring the other ways in which MCPS is failing high achievers (and potential high achievers).

I don't know that the BOE even noticed it at the last meeting, honestly. MCPS keeps posting these presentations the day of the meeting rather than 4 days in advance like they're supposed to. And there was a firehouse of new information. And you had to look closely and match up symbols to realize that's what they're proposing-- I missed it myself the first time too.

I wouldn't assume the board doesn't care-- but they do need it brought to their attention, and to know that the community cares. That means testifying at Board meetings and emailing Board members.

You can also give feedback to MCP$ via the current feedback form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform) and any other feedback opportunities, etc, and/or email MCPS staffers who have been active in this like Angela McLane and Jeannie Franklin, and/or go above them to Niki Porter and the superintendent. The humanities programs have a lower profile than RMIB and the STEM ones so they may honestly not think anyone will care much, but then back down if there's an uproar. This is frankly a pretty easy fix and they may back down and make them criteria-based if they get pushback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

MCPS presented a slideshow that had all Humanities programs as interest-based. So, you are correct that it is not adopted, but DCUM is the first place I've seen pushback. The Board certainly did not push back. I find it ironic that the school board leapt into action this week when the TPMS magnet busses were messed up, but have spent years ignoring the other ways in which MCPS is failing high achievers (and potential high achievers).

I don't know that the BOE even noticed it at the last meeting, honestly. MCPS keeps posting these presentations the day of the meeting rather than 4 days in advance like they're supposed to. And there was a firehouse of new information. And you had to look closely and match up symbols to realize that's what they're proposing-- I missed it myself the first time too.

I wouldn't assume the board doesn't care-- but they do need it brought to their attention, and to know that the community cares. That means testifying at Board meetings and emailing Board members.

You can also give feedback to MCP$ via the current feedback form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform) and any other feedback opportunities, etc, and/or email MCPS staffers who have been active in this like Angela McLane and Jeannie Franklin, and/or go above them to Niki Porter and the superintendent. The humanities programs have a lower profile than RMIB and the STEM ones so they may honestly not think anyone will care much, but then back down if there's an uproar. This is frankly a pretty easy fix and they may back down and make them criteria-based if they get pushback.

Write the BOE and copy the people who fund the school district - the county council.

[Anonymous]

Do RMIB and the regional IB programs look for minimum MAP-M scores and/or a certain amount of acceleration in math in selecting applicants? Is it possible for a kid who is strong in English/humanities but only muddling through grade-level math to get into IB programs and succeed, or not really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

Thank you MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

They're not changing it to the 90+ kids, they're removing criteria altogether. That's completely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These changes amount to MCPS treating STEM programs like they’re vocational training for white collar jobs and humanities programs like they’re a hobby.

Who needs employees who are skilled researchers, critical thinkers, creative problem solvers, effective communicators, trained to evaluate source material, experienced with collaboration, and who understand the historical context of past policies and the likely future ramifications of today’s policy proposals?

Universities should take care of professional education that produce qualified workforce for all the aforementioned categories. K-12 is about building a strong foundation through rigorous education. Engaging in professional development in certain direction? Sure, nice to have. But it’s up-side-down right now. Fix the fundamental education first when budget is tight.

And if magnet students are getting the education that creates skilled researchers, etc. but other students aren't, then we have a problem.

That requires classroom discipline and engaged families. From observation, not all MCPS schools and families fit this description.

We need a system that doesn't leave capable students out in the cold because a program only accepts a limited number each year.

This new system won't increase access to magnet programs and the RMIB; it will diminish the quality of these programs and create new programs that don't come near the rigor of the current magnets and RMIB.

We’re in a loop. What is the point of a retort like this? How do you know the quality will be diminished if more students have access to the programs? Because you feel it in your heart?

+1 the focus should be on making sure the criteria for the programs is high (meaning at least 90 percentile).

Assuming the regional magnets won’t come near the rigor is an emotional reaction not backed by evidence.

Look up and check out the title of this post: all criteria-based humanity programs are changing into interests-based, and saying that the rigor will still be kept high is like claiming the Earth's surface is flat.

Policy has not been finalized regarding whether humanities will change to interest based. If you follow BOE meetings, you would know that.

You do not need students who have been groomed from a young age from two W schools in order for rigor to still be kept high. My DCs again are 99 percentile, but I believe those who score > 90 are highly able, but are without the helicoptering that is required in many cases to be farther up the ladder. They can handle the rigor. And there are plenty if these > 90 percentile students in each region: they are the ones who MAP-tested into compacted math and the former ELC.

They're not changing it to the 90+ kids, they're removing criteria altogether. That's completely different.

I think there might still be a chance to lobby to get it to be criteria-based after all-- but I think we have to fight for that if we want it.

[Anonymous]

It looks like Blair's CAP is listed as a "communications" program rather than a "humanities" program-- does that seem right to folks? How similar or different is it to Poolesville Humanities? I had heard people talk about CAP as a humanities magnet but is that not really right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Blair's CAP is listed as a "communications" program rather than a "humanities" program-- does that seem right to folks? How similar or different is it to Poolesville Humanities? I had heard people talk about CAP as a humanities magnet but is that not really right?

Communications captures it better, I think. Or media studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Blair's CAP is listed as a "communications" program rather than a "humanities" program-- does that seem right to folks? How similar or different is it to Poolesville Humanities? I had heard people talk about CAP as a humanities magnet but is that not really right?

Communications captures it better, I think. Or media studies.

Is it more or less media/communications-focused than the middle school humanities magnets?