MCPS to end areawide Blair Magnet and countywide Richard Montgomery's IB program

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

These ED degrees are about admin, not curriculum. They don't know curriculum. And they are lost in the woods on this new regional system with regional programming. These programs are being made up on the fly. Too many changes, too quickly. And they are taking down flagship programs, for what? They could do the regional programs and still form cross-regional student cohorts for magnets.

But they do have folks in staff who do know about curriculum.

As far as I know, the planning committee includes zeros teacher from these programs, so they "know" the curriculum from course names, and apparently doesn't know the difference between cosmology vs. cosmetology.

If this is true, that is egregious. None of the Blair or Poolesville SMCS teachers are involved in planning the roll-out of 4 new STEM magnets? That's insane if true.

I know that Blair magnet teachers and coordinator worked with Poolesville educators, to support the Poolesville magnet program as it rolled out, and Blair helped Poolesville in reflecting a learning culture conducive for highly able students. I don't believe that this is happening currently, with the new regional programs. I believe that Project Lead the Way curriculum is utilized for Wheaton's engineering program, although I may be wrong about that. Wheaton's program is a success, because it has picked up on high achieving DCC students who are strivers - good on that school leadership. Schools supporting other schools, and smart school leadership looking for a way to attract striving students are what worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a critical mass of highly able students in the same classroom, a good program, and good teachers for this to be successful. Montgomery county benefited from the national awards won by Blair, Poolesville, and RM students, by increased tax revenue for instance. It is simply not possible to achieve the same level of success with regional programs. There won't be enough interested and capable students to justify the same level of classes at the same number of classes. There won't be enough teachers capable of teaching these classes at the same level they are taught today. For all practical purposes, this is the end of a very successful program. Sad.

Why do you need especially capable teachers? It isn't like advanced students are difficult to teach. It's highly dubious that these elite programs weren't accessible to anyone who had test scores in the first place. More like an excuse to dumb down the curricula at other sites.

You must not have dealt with an advanced student before. A lot of them are on two-sigma spectrum, meaning it's hard to get them or keep them engaged. They also tend to give people an impression of "snobbish", simply because they are sharp enough to quickly know you are smart and know what you are talking about or you are not, and they are not mature enough to hide their feelings. Average-Joe teachers typically do not find pleasant experience dealing with these students.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

If she confused cosmology with cosmetology, that is pretty bad

I’m not certain that she confused cosmology with cosmetology. Cosmetology is often a CTE program. If I was going to plan it somewhere so likely would have it cross artistic and entrepreneurship.

That was my initial thought, but cosmetology was on a slide about STEM offerings. In no universe of the cosmos is cosmetology considered STEM. MCPS communications have so many errors, that I'm not giving Hazel and co the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I know it's weird but apparently cosmetology falls under "technology education" in MCPS (so the T in STEM) and they claim they educate the kids about the science of cosmetology- not a great fit, I agree, but I guess they are trying hard to cram most of their existing programs/specializations into one of their 5 buckets.

I can't imagine they mean cosmology on that slide-- it's a slide about CTE options that lead to certifications before graduating high school, which cosmetology does but I highly doubt there is any high-school-level cosmology certification MCPS plans to offer...

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

These ED degrees are about admin, not curriculum. They don't know curriculum. And they are lost in the woods on this new regional system with regional programming. These programs are being made up on the fly. Too many changes, too quickly. And they are taking down flagship programs, for what? They could do the regional programs and still form cross-regional student cohorts for magnets.

But they do have folks in staff who do know about curriculum.

As far as I know, the planning committee includes zeros teacher from these programs, so they "know" the curriculum from course names, and apparently doesn't know the difference between cosmology vs. cosmetology.

If this is true, that is egregious. None of the Blair or Poolesville SMCS teachers are involved in planning the roll-out of 4 new STEM magnets? That's insane if true.

I know that Blair magnet teachers and coordinator worked with Poolesville educators, to support the Poolesville magnet program as it rolled out, and Blair helped Poolesville in reflecting a learning culture conducive for highly able students. I don't believe that this is happening currently, with the new regional programs. I believe that Project Lead the Way curriculum is utilized for Wheaton's engineering program, although I may be wrong about that. Wheaton's program is a success, because it has picked up on high achieving DCC students who are strivers - good on that school leadership. Schools supporting other schools, and smart school leadership looking for a way to attract striving students are what worked.

This is not happening for now. Mr. O didn't get to know any of this impact to Blair SMACS until last month, and he was informed by parents/students.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

These ED degrees are about admin, not curriculum. They don't know curriculum. And they are lost in the woods on this new regional system with regional programming. These programs are being made up on the fly. Too many changes, too quickly. And they are taking down flagship programs, for what? They could do the regional programs and still form cross-regional student cohorts for magnets.

But they do have folks in staff who do know about curriculum.

As far as I know, the planning committee includes zeros teacher from these programs, so they "know" the curriculum from course names, and apparently doesn't know the difference between cosmology vs. cosmetology.

If this is true, that is egregious. None of the Blair or Poolesville SMCS teachers are involved in planning the roll-out of 4 new STEM magnets? That's insane if true.

I know that Blair magnet teachers and coordinator worked with Poolesville educators, to support the Poolesville magnet program as it rolled out, and Blair helped Poolesville in reflecting a learning culture conducive for highly able students. I don't believe that this is happening currently, with the new regional programs. I believe that Project Lead the Way curriculum is utilized for Wheaton's engineering program, although I may be wrong about that. Wheaton's program is a success, because it has picked up on high achieving DCC students who are strivers - good on that school leadership. Schools supporting other schools, and smart school leadership looking for a way to attract striving students are what worked.

This is not happening for now. Mr. O didn't get to know any of this impact to Blair SMACS until last month, and he was informed by parents/students.

So the school district shut out Peter Ostrander, the Blair magnet coordinator, who is one of the most valuable MCPS STEM educator- administrators we have. Thomas Taylor and Niki Hazel Porter are heart-breakingly clueless.

A good super would ask the questions: who is involved with this regional and program planning process and why are they included? What expertise are we looking for? Who amongst our school educators AND principals might also be lend content expertise and MCPS institutional knowledge to ensure outstanding curriculum and smooth transitional planning?

The hubris of Central Office - for these administrators to think they can throw this together and think the community is going to roll over and take it when what they present is sub par for all students. What a vast waste of resources.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

These ED degrees are about admin, not curriculum. They don't know curriculum. And they are lost in the woods on this new regional system with regional programming. These programs are being made up on the fly. Too many changes, too quickly. And they are taking down flagship programs, for what? They could do the regional programs and still form cross-regional student cohorts for magnets.

But they do have folks in staff who do know about curriculum.

As far as I know, the planning committee includes zeros teacher from these programs, so they "know" the curriculum from course names, and apparently doesn't know the difference between cosmology vs. cosmetology.

If this is true, that is egregious. None of the Blair or Poolesville SMCS teachers are involved in planning the roll-out of 4 new STEM magnets? That's insane if true.

I know that Blair magnet teachers and coordinator worked with Poolesville educators, to support the Poolesville magnet program as it rolled out, and Blair helped Poolesville in reflecting a learning culture conducive for highly able students. I don't believe that this is happening currently, with the new regional programs. I believe that Project Lead the Way curriculum is utilized for Wheaton's engineering program, although I may be wrong about that. Wheaton's program is a success, because it has picked up on high achieving DCC students who are strivers - good on that school leadership. Schools supporting other schools, and smart school leadership looking for a way to attract striving students are what worked.

Well, of course it isn't, because the new regional programs don't exist yet, in fact haven't even been fully described to or approved by the board yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a critical mass of highly able students in the same classroom, a good program, and good teachers for this to be successful. Montgomery county benefited from the national awards won by Blair, Poolesville, and RM students, by increased tax revenue for instance. It is simply not possible to achieve the same level of success with regional programs. There won't be enough interested and capable students to justify the same level of classes at the same number of classes. There won't be enough teachers capable of teaching these classes at the same level they are taught today. For all practical purposes, this is the end of a very successful program. Sad.

Why do you need especially capable teachers? It isn't like advanced students are difficult to teach. It's highly dubious that these elite programs weren't accessible to anyone who had test scores in the first place. More like an excuse to dumb down the curricula at other sites.

You must not have dealt with an advanced student before. A lot of them are on two-sigma spectrum, meaning it's hard to get them or keep them engaged. They also tend to give people an impression of "snobbish", simply because they are sharp enough to quickly know you are smart and know what you are talking about or you are not, and they are not mature enough to hide their feelings. Average-Joe teachers typically do not find pleasant experience dealing with these students.

Most of these kids are like HAL 9000 from the space odyssey, they've already figured out you aren't necessary or sufficient to complete their learning mission.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

These ED degrees are about admin, not curriculum. They don't know curriculum. And they are lost in the woods on this new regional system with regional programming. These programs are being made up on the fly. Too many changes, too quickly. And they are taking down flagship programs, for what? They could do the regional programs and still form cross-regional student cohorts for magnets.

But they do have folks in staff who do know about curriculum.

As far as I know, the planning committee includes zeros teacher from these programs, so they "know" the curriculum from course names, and apparently doesn't know the difference between cosmology vs. cosmetology.

If this is true, that is egregious. None of the Blair or Poolesville SMCS teachers are involved in planning the roll-out of 4 new STEM magnets? That's insane if true.

I know that Blair magnet teachers and coordinator worked with Poolesville educators, to support the Poolesville magnet program as it rolled out, and Blair helped Poolesville in reflecting a learning culture conducive for highly able students. I don't believe that this is happening currently, with the new regional programs. I believe that Project Lead the Way curriculum is utilized for Wheaton's engineering program, although I may be wrong about that. Wheaton's program is a success, because it has picked up on high achieving DCC students who are strivers - good on that school leadership. Schools supporting other schools, and smart school leadership looking for a way to attract striving students are what worked.

1). Do you know the list of people advising on the program analysis and know there is no one from Blair on it, or are you just speculating?

2) Program analysis/planning, and actual implementation/roll-out, are two entirely different things. I agree that Blair SMCS staff should be involved in both. But of course we would not expect to see things yet like Blair teachers working with teachers at the new schools, because we don't even know what the new schools will be or who the teachers will be.

What we should be seeing now is people who are knowledgeable about Blair SMCS advising on the feasibility and implications of establishing 4 additional similar regional programs-- and we do not know whether that is happening or not.

[Anonymous]

Late to this since my kid is graduating but the dismantling of these flagship magnet programs really is a shame. Both Poolesville and Blair are nationally ranked. Just flushing that all down the toilet?

I am all for more regional programs, but they should keep the current ones as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Late to this since my kid is graduating but the dismantling of these flagship magnet programs really is a shame. Both Poolesville and Blair are nationally ranked. Just flushing that all down the toilet?

I am all for more regional programs, but they should keep the current ones as well.

They are keeping the current ones. Just changing the boundaries of who can attend them (and probably also making them a bit smaller, for Blair at least.). No one knows how big or small an impact this will have on them, but that doesn't stop some people from being sure they will be "destroyed."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a critical mass of highly able students in the same classroom, a good program, and good teachers for this to be successful. Montgomery county benefited from the national awards won by Blair, Poolesville, and RM students, by increased tax revenue for instance. It is simply not possible to achieve the same level of success with regional programs. There won't be enough interested and capable students to justify the same level of classes at the same number of classes. There won't be enough teachers capable of teaching these classes at the same level they are taught today. For all practical purposes, this is the end of a very successful program. Sad.

Why do you need especially capable teachers? It isn't like advanced students are difficult to teach. It's highly dubious that these elite programs weren't accessible to anyone who had test scores in the first place. More like an excuse to dumb down the curricula at other sites.

You must not have dealt with an advanced student before. A lot of them are on two-sigma spectrum, meaning it's hard to get them or keep them engaged. They also tend to give people an impression of "snobbish", simply because they are sharp enough to quickly know you are smart and know what you are talking about or you are not, and they are not mature enough to hide their feelings. Average-Joe teachers typically do not find pleasant experience dealing with these students.

Most of these kids are like HAL 9000 from the space odyssey, they've already figured out you aren't necessary or sufficient to complete their learning mission.

A nasty, horrific remark from a miserable person - calling these students murderers. As you look back on your life, if you ever develop the capacity to reflect, you likely will see that you reaped what you sowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to this since my kid is graduating but the dismantling of these flagship magnet programs really is a shame. Both Poolesville and Blair are nationally ranked. Just flushing that all down the toilet?

I am all for more regional programs, but they should keep the current ones as well.

They are keeping the current ones. Just changing the boundaries of who can attend them (and probably also making them a bit smaller, for Blair at least.). No one knows how big or small an impact this will have on them, but that doesn't stop some people from being sure they will be "destroyed."

The magnet programs will change once recruitment is limited to one region only for each. MCPS is changing the student cohorts, and that will have a real impact. They should let the magnets continue to recruit cross-regionally. They could develop regional programs and keep the magnets, but MCPS is not doing that.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:make sure you're looking at the most recent region groupings. The link on the MCPS message to region maps was an old version. Not all regions are east-to-west anymore.

Do you have a link to the new maps?

Starting on slide 23: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DJVQ4P6782A9/$file/Sec%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Engaga%20Plan%20Update%20250724%20PPT.pdf

So, they are going with option #5? - pg 26.

DP. Yes. I think these boundaries balance higher and lower SES, and harmony of communities as much as possible. You cannot ignore harmony. I know a student from a very different community who was bussed into a program due to its opportunity at the insistence of their parent. That student was miserable and was elated at switching to a school community they could better resonate with at the first opportunity.

No one wants forced bussing. The best option is to put more money in the schools that don’t have much and make them equal. The disparities are significant. A smart kid at a w school can get all their classes and academics met. A smart kid dcc is forced to another school, Mc or go without. They don’t allow homeschooling or independent study or virtual classes outside Mcps. Or, at least being back virtual so it aligns with MCPS schedules.

The demographics are changing in mcps in the dcc due to crazy housing prices.

Blair is a great program but not for all kids. Not all kids want a magnet and prefer to choose their own classes and those kids should get the same opportunities. One reason why dcc kids try for Blair is the other schools don’t have the academics and they leave which causes the low scores.

I think this is part of what MCPS is trying to figure out, and I credit Taylor with at least tackling it. My understanding is that they are going to make sure every school has a baseline number of advanced classes, and that they are currently auditing what is available where.

But we also need to be realistic and aim for what is possible. I think making sure every HS has AP Calculus BC is sufficient, and then bringing back virtual for MVC for some kids.

What other courses do you think every school should be offering?

MVC

there are not enough students interested in MVC in each HS to offer it. If we had unlimited funding, sure. But, we don't. Plus, good luck finding good teachers to teach mvc at every HS.

I know nothing about MVC so am curious what folks think-- is it better to take MVC virtually from a good teacher (both good at teaching MVC and good at online teaching), or to take it locally with a poor or mediocre teacher?

(I know some individual kids really struggle with virtual learning, but I'm talking about the majority of kids here.)

I'm a university faculty, and I had supervised an undergrad from a mediocre university before through the REU program. He was in English major, but happened to take an astronomy class for fun, and the professor who taught that class found him smart, so recommended to me to do some data analysis work. He started to learn coding all by himself from scratch, and at the end of that summer, he completed his work and we finished a scientific paper together later that year. He applied to a graduate program for astronomy major in a prestigious university, and got an offer. Now he is a PhD candidate there. I once asked him why he chose English as his major. And he told me he had a really bad experience in Calc BC class back in HS, that made him hating math so much, until he took the astronomy class, and finally found his true love and true talent. This is how a good or a bad HS teacher could impact...

Okay, so is that a vote for prioritizing getting good teachers and having them teach virtually if you can't get enough good MVC teachers for all the high schools, over having an in-person MVC teacher at all high schools even if they're a bad teacher?

As a parent, my opinion doesn't matter. Ppl on this board said we should listen to Taylor or Hazel who have education PhDs and hence who should be the experts, neglecting the fact that they didn't know the magnet curriculum, and didn't care how to expand the curriculum nor how to train or find qualified teachers. Nicky Hazel even spelled "cosmology" wrong under the "STEM" example course offering in her slides (she spelled "cosmetology"). So whatever the hell.

Taylor doesn't have a PhD; he has an EdD (lower bar). Hazel has a master's degree.

Good grief he has a doctorate in education (a terminal degree) from the University of Virginia. Hazel’s masters is from the University of Pennsylvania. Are we really going to be snobs about their education or can we focus on substance.

These ED degrees are about admin, not curriculum. They don't know curriculum. And they are lost in the woods on this new regional system with regional programming. These programs are being made up on the fly. Too many changes, too quickly. And they are taking down flagship programs, for what? They could do the regional programs and still form cross-regional student cohorts for magnets.

But they do have folks in staff who do know about curriculum.

As far as I know, the planning committee includes zeros teacher from these programs, so they "know" the curriculum from course names, and apparently doesn't know the difference between cosmology vs. cosmetology.

If this is true, that is egregious. None of the Blair or Poolesville SMCS teachers are involved in planning the roll-out of 4 new STEM magnets? That's insane if true.

I know that Blair magnet teachers and coordinator worked with Poolesville educators, to support the Poolesville magnet program as it rolled out, and Blair helped Poolesville in reflecting a learning culture conducive for highly able students. I don't believe that this is happening currently, with the new regional programs. I believe that Project Lead the Way curriculum is utilized for Wheaton's engineering program, although I may be wrong about that. Wheaton's program is a success, because it has picked up on high achieving DCC students who are strivers - good on that school leadership. Schools supporting other schools, and smart school leadership looking for a way to attract striving students are what worked.

1). Do you know the list of people advising on the program analysis and know there is no one from Blair on it, or are you just speculating?

2) Program analysis/planning, and actual implementation/roll-out, are two entirely different things. I agree that Blair SMCS staff should be involved in both. But of course we would not expect to see things yet like Blair teachers working with teachers at the new schools, because we don't even know what the new schools will be or who the teachers will be.

What we should be seeing now is people who are knowledgeable about Blair SMCS advising on the feasibility and implications of establishing 4 additional similar regional programs-- and we do not know whether that is happening or not.

Is that you, Jeanie Franklin - director of MCPS' Department of Consortia and Application Program Services, who leading program development for the new regions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Late to this since my kid is graduating but the dismantling of these flagship magnet programs really is a shame. Both Poolesville and Blair are nationally ranked. Just flushing that all down the toilet?

I am all for more regional programs, but they should keep the current ones as well.

This is exactly what I don't understand, why is MCPS purposefully destroying itself? And why can't they add more regional programs but keep the current county-wide ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Late to this since my kid is graduating but the dismantling of these flagship magnet programs really is a shame. Both Poolesville and Blair are nationally ranked. Just flushing that all down the toilet?

I am all for more regional programs, but they should keep the current ones as well.

They are keeping the current ones. Just changing the boundaries of who can attend them (and probably also making them a bit smaller, for Blair at least.). No one knows how big or small an impact this will have on them, but that doesn't stop some people from being sure they will be "destroyed."

This is absolutely not the case. There is no way the three Poolesville programs will continue at the same school. There is no replication/replacement for Global Ecology in the new proposed regional programs. The current county-wide programs are not distributed equally so there will be regions with no established programs and only new programs, which is not equitable. You have no idea what you're talking about. YES, they are destroying these county-wide programs, especially at Poolesville.