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.

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...

It's not weird. It's wrong. Cosmetology is not part of STEM unless MCPS is specifically offering some sort of chemistry training to produce beauty products. That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.

[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.

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...

It's not weird. It's wrong. Cosmetology is not part of STEM unless MCPS is specifically offering some sort of chemistry training to produce beauty products. That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.

If you do a Google search for is Cosmetology stem a bunch of results come up saying it is. I'm not saying they're right but apparently there is a line of thought that it is a technical and stem field.

[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.

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...

It's not weird. It's wrong. Cosmetology is not part of STEM unless MCPS is specifically offering some sort of chemistry training to produce beauty products. That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.

Cosmetology is part of Career & Technical Education (CTE) in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/career-readiness/plans/hs-plans/

[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.

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...

It's not weird. It's wrong. Cosmetology is not part of STEM unless MCPS is specifically offering some sort of chemistry training to produce beauty products. That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.

Cosmetology is part of Career & Technical Education (CTE) in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/career-readiness/plans/hs-plans/

Did you read the link you posted? It clearly lists cosmetology under Consumer Services, Hospitality, and Tourism. There are several science/tech categories, and cosmetology is NOT listed.

[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:

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...

It's not weird. It's wrong. Cosmetology is not part of STEM unless MCPS is specifically offering some sort of chemistry training to produce beauty products. That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.

Cosmetology is part of Career & Technical Education (CTE) in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/career-readiness/plans/hs-plans/

Did you read the link you posted? It clearly lists cosmetology under Consumer Services, Hospitality, and Tourism. There are several science/tech categories, and cosmetology is NOT listed.

The whole point of the slide is that the CTE programs are being revised for 2027-28. The slide is showing what the plan for 2027-28 will be. The web site is what the current arrangement is. The slide isn't about SMCS at all. See slide 32.

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

[Anonymous]

^ But it’s in the STEM box of that CTE slide, with things like cybersecurity and agricultural. Makeup artist is an awkward fit, at best, with those things.

[Anonymous]

Come on people what do you expect from MCPS central office staff? Do you really think they know the difference? I don't even think they can spell the words correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ But it’s in the STEM box of that CTE slide, with things like cybersecurity and agricultural. Makeup artist is an awkward fit, at best, with those things.

Yes, as a PP already explained, they're trying to rearrange all of the CTE programs to fit into the five broad categories. Not everything fits perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on people what do you expect from MCPS central office staff? Do you really think they know the difference? I don't even think they can spell the words correctly.

The PP who brought up cosmology in the first place was mistaken. That was never what the CTE slide was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ But it’s in the STEM box of that CTE slide, with things like cybersecurity and agricultural. Makeup artist is an awkward fit, at best, with those things.

Yes, as a PP already explained, they're trying to rearrange all of the CTE programs to fit into the five broad categories. Not everything fits perfectly.

It makes much more sense in the entrepreneurship, arts, or healthcare box.

I think I agree with this PP: “That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.”

[Anonymous]

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.

We have teachers to teach it.

There's a shortage of STEM teachers. I doubt MCPS has "enough" teachers who are capable to teach MVC in every HS. They can throw a body at teaching it, but it doesn't mean that they are qualified and good at teaching it.

I stated earlier, the one AP Calc AB teacher at the HS in our cluster was so bad, that DC decided to downgrade and take Calc App. I don't there are enough good MVC teachers in MCPS for every HS.

That's unfortunate yours was bad. There are good and bad teachers at every school. We didn't have that experience but never did AB. We got a tutor to supplement because the lack of textbooks and structured curriculum was hard on my kids. They only need one teacher.

[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?

Does MCPS have enough good math teachers to teach AP BC calc in every HS? There's a shortage of STEM teachers. I don't think MCPS can find enough good teachers for math.

My kid wanted to take AB Calc but the teacher was so bad that they downgraded to Applied Calc. A bad math teacher can make the class awful, and the kid to hate math.

Then fix that part. But saying that there shouldn't be an advanced math class in every HS is terrible. And yes some schools may only offer one AP calc class and have 10 kids. That's ok. But someone will complain that too many resources are used on the 10 kids in that school while a W school has to have 3 sections of 30 kids in calculus and won't get funding for a 4th.

40 kids to a class is normal. Be thankful your school has it. It’s not ok if they aren’t offering Mv and beyond while your school has multiple advanced classes. Why should my tax dollars fund your kids advance classes when my kids don’t get them?

Because your kid isn't smart enough to pass MV. Now, I said it!

dp

Except my kid is and already did bc.

So nobody should get it if your kid cannot? Is that really where we are at?

No, we are at all kids should have access to the same classes. So mine should get the same as yours. It’s unfair to kids who take bc sophomore year that they don’t have enough math classes to graduate.

So that means the magnets should be destroyed?

You have zero evidence the magnets are being destroyed. The world will not end if the current status quo changes from that which only kids from a few high school areas that are closest to the program sites attend. Ideally they'd change the narrow selection criteria as well so it's not focused only on MAP-R or MAP-M scores, which are not designed to measure cognitive ability.

Actually, the countywide magnets and SMCS will be destroyed. Said so during Q&A of the most recent BOE mtg. It is their plan NOT to replicate these programs.

They didn't say destroyed. They said they would all be regional, not countywide, and that each reguon would have some program that falls within the same magnet category (e.g., STEM).

The interpretation by some, here, is that there are not enough capable students, and perhaps not enough capable teachers, to support the same kinds of high-level & specialized classes that have been available at the county-wide/semi-county-wide magnets. That interpretation and the assumptions on which it is based are the subjects of debate.

The thing that MCPS hasn't clarified is whether each regional magnet will operate at the same level, not only as each other, but as the original county-wide/semi-county-wide magnets, offering similar, if not the same, depth, breadth and rigor to meet the needs of the highly able students attending. This reticence, combined with MCPS's history over the past 3 or so decades of withholding pertinet information to limit opposition to internally determined plans, lends credence to some of the concerns expressed, even if some of the underlying assumptions regarding the prevalence and dispersion of student and teacher capability might be incorrect. Deep, persistent questions on this issue, and the parallel issue of truly equitable access to local high-level courses outside of the magnets, should be, and, sadly, should already have been but were not, among the very first asked by the BOE.

Yes, this is my concern. Say they kept the current countywide magnets exactly as-is, but open to only the students in those new regions. And then each region offered something in the content area, but not at the level of the current program. Doesn’t that just reduce even the possibility of access for most of the county?

Sorry, top 10% art kid in region 2. VAC still exists, but not for you. Have this other, yet-to-be-defined, art program instead. Who needs a 50-year history and proven success? Not you!

Want the VAC, move to the area. Simple.

Aside from the possibility that the PP is a Wooton parent really concerned (and rightly so) about losing access to Blair SMCS (whether or not that, itself, survives at its current level) and the risk of whatever the Wheaton STEM magnet becomes offering a pale shadow in comparison (at least for the first few years), hoping to rope in others with the VAC example, instead (again, not a bad thing, either strategically or ethically; you can provide whatever probability of this fits your mindset :wink, the idea behind suggesting that a family should have to move within a school district to access educational opportunity meeting their children's needs is the most persistent of inequities we have in the county. It also feeds, via the predjudice of low expectation and other factors, the deepest of those inequities, and the one about which central admin and the BOE spend the bulk of their time analyzing, discussing and trying to address, sadly overlooking the possibility of doing the admittedly harder work of addressing both.

PP here. I’ve had kids at both the VAC and Blair SMCS. We live in region 1 anyway, so we’d continue to have access to both programs - we’re not directly affected.

That said, I still think it stinks to give at most 1/6 of kids continued access to a proven, award-winning, countywide magnet while giving everyone else the opportunity to play guinea pig in a new, untested program.

And, I know this board loves STEM, but I think my VAC kid would be less likely to get a workable replacement in the new system. Would my SMCS student have had the same range and selection of college-level STEM courses in the new system? Probably not. But they’d be fine with a variety of AP math & science courses and a few cool electives. I don’t see a less-intensive art equivalent serving the same function for my VAC student.

[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:

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.

This is sadly par for the course. Central office never asks teachers about anything

[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:

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.

This is sadly par for the course. Central office never asks teachers about anything

But this is just lies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ But it’s in the STEM box of that CTE slide, with things like cybersecurity and agricultural. Makeup artist is an awkward fit, at best, with those things.

Yes, as a PP already explained, they're trying to rearrange all of the CTE programs to fit into the five broad categories. Not everything fits perfectly.

It makes much more sense in the entrepreneurship, arts, or healthcare box.

I think I agree with this PP: “That MCPS considers cosmetology STEM is more disturbing than mixing up cosmology with cosmetology.”

PP who brought up this wording concern here. I originally thought it’s a typo, which is laughable, but now I intend to believe it’s not a typo. This is study team’s understanding about STEM, which is much more alarming. Anyway, just want to point out that cosmology is not in SMACS course offering.