Program analysis webinars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

You’ve invented this large local set aside. That is fan fic at this point.

Nope, they have repeatedly talked about local set-asides. In the example in their latest Board presentation it was about 1/3 but I've heard mention of larger set-asides too.

That example also talked about there only being about 50-60 seats per grade for the rest of the region. So basically maybe 15-20 kids per grade from each DCC school could get into the IB or humanities programs (or less if significant numbers of Whitman kids apply.) Meanwhile, on top of the disproportionate number of BCC kids who get into the magnets, it's likely that hundreds of non-magnet BCC kids will also benefit from the strong teachers and classes that will be located at their school (while a school like Einstein will likely lose a large share of their top 10-20% highest-achieving kids to academic magnets at other schools.) Not sure how any objective analysis of this doesn't come to the conclusion that BCC wins and Einstein loses here.

(And no, Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are not the poorest schools in the county, they're around average, more-or-leas. But they are objectively significantly poorer and less white than BCC.)

A disproportionate quota for students of the host school seems so deeply unfair and inequitable to me, especially as you point out, students who aren't in the formal program could in many cases still benefit from the classes and teachers.

Agreed. There is "maybe* some case for it when you're putting a highly competitive program into a low-SES school where few local kids would qualify for it otherwise, to avoid it being a program made up nearly entirely of out-of-bounds kids (although even then there are some strong arguments against it.). But it is 100% nuts and unfair to use it to give extra bonus seats to kids at a school that is better off than other schools in its region. But MCPS has said they're very committed to this approach...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

MCPS said that each school will have about 500 magnet seats. So at BCC, that would be 250 for IB and 250 for Humanities. That’s 62 students per year admitted to each program. If MCPS reserves 30% of seats for the home school, that leaves 43 seats per year for IB and 43 for Humanities, split between students from the rest of the region.

Einstein and Northwood kids can apply, but very few will get accepted, even if MCPS ensures that each cluster gets equal seats in the programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.

MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.

The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.

This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.

Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

MCPS said that each school will have about 500 magnet seats. So at BCC, that would be 250 for IB and 250 for Humanities. That’s 62 students per year admitted to each program. If MCPS reserves 30% of seats for the home school, that leaves 43 seats per year for IB and 43 for Humanities, split between students from the rest of the region.

Einstein and Northwood kids can apply, but very few will get accepted, even if MCPS ensures that each cluster gets equal seats in the programs.

This. If they removed the local set asides I would be less concerned because then at least the kids at the non-BCC schools in region 1 would get a fair chance at the 2 (<<why?) regional programs being hosted at BCC. Local set asides are entirely inconsistent with the regional model and undermine the rationale behind it. >

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

People should be fighting the local set asides. Then let the rest play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

MCPS said that each school will have about 500 magnet seats. So at BCC, that would be 250 for IB and 250 for Humanities. That’s 62 students per year admitted to each program. If MCPS reserves 30% of seats for the home school, that leaves 43 seats per year for IB and 43 for Humanities, split between students from the rest of the region.

Einstein and Northwood kids can apply, but very few will get accepted, even if MCPS ensures that each cluster gets equal seats in the programs.

This. If they removed the local set asides I would be less concerned because then at least the kids at the non-BCC schools in region 1 would get a fair chance at the 2 (<<why?) regional programs being hosted at BCC. Local set asides are entirely inconsistent with the regional model and undermine the rationale behind it. >

I agree that local set asides are problematic, but also, isn't it better to not pull too many students away from their local schools? That would undermine the IB program at Einstein.

It seems like one of their goals is to reduce busing kids to other schools and I fully support that. I'm not really interested in more segregated programs at Einstein for kids from other neighborhoods.

[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:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

MCPS said that each school will have about 500 magnet seats. So at BCC, that would be 250 for IB and 250 for Humanities. That’s 62 students per year admitted to each program. If MCPS reserves 30% of seats for the home school, that leaves 43 seats per year for IB and 43 for Humanities, split between students from the rest of the region.

Einstein and Northwood kids can apply, but very few will get accepted, even if MCPS ensures that each cluster gets equal seats in the programs.

I’m sorry, so in your example if you go to Einstein, there are 86 open seats at BCC for non BCC students, 86 open seats at Northwood, 86 at Whitman, 86 at Blair, plus you can choose to attend Einstein as well. That’s 344 seats that are potentially available to you as an out of bounds student even with additional seats (30 percent) set aside for in bounds students.

There are about 10,000 students per grade. Divide by 6 and each region only has 1667 students total. Huge numbers of those students are not at grade level and would not have the prerequisite background to enter some of these programs (I don’t think you can consider the math one if you haven’t studied Algebra yet, for example). Others do not wish to leave friends, commute, specialize, etc. There are more than enough spots. Actually probably too many in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

MCPS said that each school will have about 500 magnet seats. So at BCC, that would be 250 for IB and 250 for Humanities. That’s 62 students per year admitted to each program. If MCPS reserves 30% of seats for the home school, that leaves 43 seats per year for IB and 43 for Humanities, split between students from the rest of the region.

Einstein and Northwood kids can apply, but very few will get accepted, even if MCPS ensures that each cluster gets equal seats in the programs.

This. If they removed the local set asides I would be less concerned because then at least the kids at the non-BCC schools in region 1 would get a fair chance at the 2 (<<why?) regional programs being hosted at BCC. Local set asides are entirely inconsistent with the regional model and undermine the rationale behind it. >

I agree that local set asides are problematic, but also, isn't it better to not pull too many students away from their local schools? That would undermine the IB program at Einstein.

It seems like one of their goals is to reduce busing kids to other schools and I fully support that. I'm not really interested in more segregated programs at Einstein for kids from other neighborhoods.

I’m also of the camp that they shouldn’t be pulling kids from local schools and therefore regional programs should actually be smaller (but still without the local set aside).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

Sure, more appealing for B-CC, but, as noted, leaving Einstein (and Northwood) with considerably less (see the above "needle" post). Equity, remember?

(DP)

These programs will be open to students from Einstein and Northwood to apply to. That’s the whole idea. I don’t know why you would underestimate their ability to earn a spot if they are reasonably qualified to handle the courses/rigor. Right now Northwood doesn’t have access to any of this as far as I know, and Einstein has a less successful IB program from a test results standpoint, and fewer high level non IB courses. This actually increases access for students in these zones.

MCPS said that each school will have about 500 magnet seats. So at BCC, that would be 250 for IB and 250 for Humanities. That’s 62 students per year admitted to each program. If MCPS reserves 30% of seats for the home school, that leaves 43 seats per year for IB and 43 for Humanities, split between students from the rest of the region.

Einstein and Northwood kids can apply, but very few will get accepted, even if MCPS ensures that each cluster gets equal seats in the programs.

This. If they removed the local set asides I would be less concerned because then at least the kids at the non-BCC schools in region 1 would get a fair chance at the 2 (<<why?) regional programs being hosted at BCC. Local set asides are entirely inconsistent with the regional model and undermine the rationale behind it. >

I agree that local set asides are problematic, but also, isn't it better to not pull too many students away from their local schools? That would undermine the IB program at Einstein.

It seems like one of their goals is to reduce busing kids to other schools and I fully support that. I'm not really interested in more segregated programs at Einstein for kids from other neighborhoods.

I’m also of the camp that they shouldn’t be pulling kids from local schools and therefore regional programs should actually be smaller (but still without the local set aside).

Yeah I thought they want to encourage attendance at your local schools so I don’t understand the existence of the regional programs since that does the opposite. And if you’re doing the regional programs to provide more choice to students, then it’s logically inconsistent to have local set asides. Basically - I don’t understand how the proposals further the stated goals. But then again there’s a lot I don’t understand about this rushed, non-transparent, and logically inconsistent “program analysis” that is occurring at a time of great underlying change (i.e. the boundary changes) so even if it were actually based on an analysis of current circumstances (which is questionable) it doesn’t take into account that those circumstances may be hugely different in the near future. They should let the boundary changes play out first, see where those chips land, and then assess the programming it seems it’s not meeting current-state needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.

I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.

Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.

And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.

This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.

What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB?

1) Einstein will lose VAPA. They may technically be able to keep it, but it will go from being a large and strong performing arts program drawing talented and passionate kids from 5 different DCC schools, to a tiny program serving only in-bounds Einstein kids (minus the most talented and passionate ones who will go to the magnet at Northwood instead.)

2) Einstein will lose out academically. Probably about 10%-15% of its top kids will go to academic magnets at other schools, and it will have no academic magnets of its own to tempt them to stay or attract smart kids from other schools to balance that out. It will be able to offer fewer high level academic classes and the school will suffer accordingly. It may not have enough interest locally to continue offering IB-- certainly not enough to offer both IB and AP options for many classes.

Altogether, it's likely that (unless they're really into visual arts) Einstein will become a school that kids try to get away from if they can, rather than its current status of being a school that many kids try to get into. A big loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.

I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.

Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.

And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.

This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.

What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB?

1) Einstein will lose VAPA. They may technically be able to keep it, but it will go from being a large and strong performing arts program drawing talented and passionate kids from 5 different DCC schools, to a tiny program serving only in-bounds Einstein kids (minus the most talented and passionate ones who will go to the magnet at Northwood instead.)

2) Einstein will lose out academically. Probably about 10%-15% of its top kids will go to academic magnets at other schools, and it will have no academic magnets of its own to tempt them to stay or attract smart kids from other schools to balance that out. It will be able to offer fewer high level academic classes and the school will suffer accordingly. It may not have enough interest locally to continue offering IB-- certainly not enough to offer both IB and AP options for many classes.

Altogether, it's likely that (unless they're really into visual arts) Einstein will become a school that kids try to get away from if they can, rather than its current status of being a school that many kids try to get into. A big loss.

And that's based on what exactly? We don't even know what Einstein's new boundaries will be yet, and you're making pronouncements on how many of these unknown students will go to magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.

I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.

Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.

And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.

This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.

What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB?

1) Einstein will lose VAPA. They may technically be able to keep it, but it will go from being a large and strong performing arts program drawing talented and passionate kids from 5 different DCC schools, to a tiny program serving only in-bounds Einstein kids (minus the most talented and passionate ones who will go to the magnet at Northwood instead.)

2) Einstein will lose out academically. Probably about 10%-15% of its top kids will go to academic magnets at other schools, and it will have no academic magnets of its own to tempt them to stay or attract smart kids from other schools to balance that out. It will be able to offer fewer high level academic classes and the school will suffer accordingly. It may not have enough interest locally to continue offering IB-- certainly not enough to offer both IB and AP options for many classes.

Altogether, it's likely that (unless they're really into visual arts) Einstein will become a school that kids try to get away from if they can, rather than its current status of being a school that many kids try to get into. A big loss.

And that's based on what exactly? We don't even know what Einstein's new boundaries will be yet, and you're making pronouncements on how many of these unknown students will go to magnets.

Plus - don't many of them go to magnets now?

[Anonymous]

FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.

But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.

Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.