Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.
But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.
No, I don't think so. Rockville HS has a purely local program and Kennedy HS had a criteria based programs and Rockville has much better scores than both Kennedy and Einstein.
Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.
But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.
No, I don't think so. Rockville HS has a purely local program and Kennedy HS had a criteria based programs and Rockville has much better scores than both Kennedy and Einstein.
Rockville HS's IB is going to be eliminated as RMIB is obviously going to continue, correct?
Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.
But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.
No, I don't think so. Rockville HS has a purely local program and Kennedy HS had a criteria based programs and Rockville has much better scores than both Kennedy and Einstein.
Rockville HS's IB is going to be eliminated as RMIB is obviously going to continue, correct?
From what I understand local programs can continue. Rockville's program is local. Funny that they can still achieve good scores and maintain their program even though "the best" s/ kids all got to RMIB.
Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?
That's not how math works.
Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.
East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.
I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.
DP.
As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.
The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.
The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.
Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.
Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.
That's great to hear.
But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:
1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)
Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.
I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.
Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.
I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.
DP here with child zoned for Einstein
I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair
So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.
This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?
But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)
BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.
It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.
I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.
Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.
And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.
This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.
What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB?
1) Einstein will lose VAPA. They may technically be able to keep it, but it will go from being a large and strong performing arts program drawing talented and passionate kids from 5 different DCC schools, to a tiny program serving only in-bounds Einstein kids (minus the most talented and passionate ones who will go to the magnet at Northwood instead.)
2) Einstein will lose out academically. Probably about 10%-15% of its top kids will go to academic magnets at other schools, and it will have no academic magnets of its own to tempt them to stay or attract smart kids from other schools to balance that out. It will be able to offer fewer high level academic classes and the school will suffer accordingly. It may not have enough interest locally to continue offering IB-- certainly not enough to offer both IB and AP options for many classes.
Altogether, it's likely that (unless they're really into visual arts) Einstein will become a school that kids try to get away from if they can, rather than its current status of being a school that many kids try to get into. A big loss.
And that's based on what exactly? We don't even know what Einstein's new boundaries will be yet, and you're making pronouncements on how many of these unknown students will go to magnets.
Based on MCPS examples which suggest there will be around 50-60 out-of-bounds kids per grade per magnet. That times 4 academic magnets equals about 200-240 academic magnet spots in the region per grade. Assume about 1/4-1/3 of those kids come from Einstein and that's 60-80 Einstein kids leaving per grade (assuming the spots are split roughly evenly among the 4 other schools in the region, or more likely 3 since Whitman kids rarely leave.) Einstein will presumably have around 400 kids per grade (building capacity.). So potentially the top 15-20% honestly but I was trying to be conservative in my estimates.
Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?
That's not how math works.
Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.
East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.
I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.
DP.
As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.
The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.
The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.
Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.
Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.
Oh I see that now thank you
Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair
This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.
MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.
The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.
This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.
Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.
Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.
Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?
That's not how math works.
Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.
East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.
I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.
DP.
As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.
The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.
The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.
Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.
Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.
That's great to hear.
But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:
1) The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school. Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that. Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3) Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)
Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there. They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.
I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.
Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids.
I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean? But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more. It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less. I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something. Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.
DP here with child zoned for Einstein
I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair
So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.
This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?
But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.) The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood. In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)
BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.) Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.
It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.
I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others. That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.
Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.
And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.
This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.
What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB?
1) Einstein will lose VAPA. They may technically be able to keep it, but it will go from being a large and strong performing arts program drawing talented and passionate kids from 5 different DCC schools, to a tiny program serving only in-bounds Einstein kids (minus the most talented and passionate ones who will go to the magnet at Northwood instead.)
2) Einstein will lose out academically. Probably about 10%-15% of its top kids will go to academic magnets at other schools, and it will have no academic magnets of its own to tempt them to stay or attract smart kids from other schools to balance that out. It will be able to offer fewer high level academic classes and the school will suffer accordingly. It may not have enough interest locally to continue offering IB-- certainly not enough to offer both IB and AP options for many classes.
Altogether, it's likely that (unless they're really into visual arts) Einstein will become a school that kids try to get away from if they can, rather than its current status of being a school that many kids try to get into. A big loss.
And that's based on what exactly? We don't even know what Einstein's new boundaries will be yet, and you're making pronouncements on how many of these unknown students will go to magnets.
Based on MCPS examples which suggest there will be around 50-60 out-of-bounds kids per grade per magnet. That times 4 academic magnets equals about 200-240 academic magnet spots in the region per grade. Assume about 1/4-1/3 of those kids come from Einstein and that's 60-80 Einstein kids leaving per grade (assuming the spots are split roughly evenly among the 4 other schools in the region, or more likely 3 since Whitman kids rarely leave.) Einstein will presumably have around 400 kids per grade (building capacity.). So potentially the top 15-20% honestly but I was trying to be conservative in my estimates.
Actually, to be scrupulously precise here, if you want to assume the share of non-local academic magnet seats going to Einstein kids is instead in the 20-30% range because it's smaller, you're talking 40-75 kids leaving per grade, so 10%-17% of each grade leaving for academic magnets (assuming everything is proportional-- I suspect instead Einstein will see more than their share of top kids choosing to leave rather than stay.) And again, all the other schools get top academic kids coming in rather than just going out so it comes closer to balancing out (or in BCC's case, they'll likely draw in far more than they lose.). Einstein is basically purely an "exporter" or academically-minded kids (unless they happen to coincidentally overlap with the visual arts or education magnet kids coming in, but neither of those will be selected based on academics.)
Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.
Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.
You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.
Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?
That's not how math works.
Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.
East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.
I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.
DP.
As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.
The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.
The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.
Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.
Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.
Oh I see that now thank you
Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair
This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.
MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.
The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.
This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.
Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.
Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.
Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.
Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.
You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.
That's not a feedback form, that's them gathering questions to answer in their FAQ. They've never put out a feedback form as far as I know.
It’s a form. Use it. Put in your concerns, questions, thoughts.
I swear some of ya’ll don’t know how to be resourceful.
It's a black hole. MCPS should be making questions/feedback public without filter or modification except for the elimination of truly coarse language, with direct answers where possible.
They don't (in a timely manner), however, because...
1) They don't want to address certain issues with specifics that would tend to raise questions about less well understood but serious impacts of their preferred course of action, some of which would lead to greater inequity and some of which would draw the ire of stakeholder groups seen as capable of holding greater sway, either of which might cause them to have to alter their approach,
2) They don't want the increased notice that such publication of stakeholder ideas might bring forth, and
3) They don't want members of the BOE to be able to glean insight which might raise questions prior to their being able to present their plans at a time (versus review/approvals) that would make meaningful modification close to impossible.
Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?
That's not how math works.
Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.
East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.
I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.
DP.
As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.
The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.
The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.
Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.
Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.
Oh I see that now thank you
Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair
This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.
MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.
The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.
This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.
Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.
Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.
+1
+2 Why are the IB scores in some local programs so bad (across all demographic groups) while others seem to do so well? You can't keep blaming the kids and their families for poor school performance.
Anonymous wrote:At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?
That's not how math works.
Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.
East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.
I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.
DP.
As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine. They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.
The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study. And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.
The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes. Students from Einstein & Northwood who "miss the cut" (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets. Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.
Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as "available" at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n>0, of course) students wish to take them. What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.
Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you.
Oh I see that now thank you
Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair
This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
Wait there will be 7 centrally managed programs in a region? I thought they said 5. Either way, that is just too many — particularly considering that local programs will so be available.
MCPS should be focusing on having strong classes at every school. Make sure that English and science have honors and regular sections, with strong curricula. Offer upper-level courses, including science and math beyond BC, at all schools.
The amount of specialization and bussing that this plan requires is not in students’ best interest. Money spent on these orograms (and the required bussing) will take away from money that can be invested in local schools. Students with weak local schools will look for a centrally managed program not out of gniune interest, but to escape a bad local school.
This is not college. Kids don’t need majors. They need to get a good ediction across subject matters at their inbounds school.
Actually there will be 14 centrally managed programs per region. Every item in the slides with the colored lists of programs will be a separate magnet.
Stop the madness, MCPS. We do not need 14 programs in each of 6 regions. We don't even need 5. We need strong local schools, so that people don't have to hope they can get into a magnet just to escape a bad school. This all feels like a bandaid trying to cover a school system that is hemhorrhaging. MCPS should be focusing on the core problem--which is that in all too many schools, they aren't getting the basics right.
+1
+2 Why are the IB scores in some local programs so bad (across all demographic groups) while others seem to do so well? You can't keep blaming the kids and their families for poor school performance.
Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.
But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.
No, I don't think so. Rockville HS has a purely local program and Kennedy HS had a criteria based programs and Rockville has much better scores than both Kennedy and Einstein.
Rockville's IB also is centered on the Career Programme vs. the Diploma Programme at Kennedy. The difficulty of achieving particular IB test scores may differ between the programs (it may not, of course, just throwing that out there as a possibility).
In addition to Kennedy's being a hard draw due to location/reputation of the school relative to the regional IB catchment, those seeking the highest IBDP achievement preferentially head to RM (if admitted). There isn't a higher-level IBCP in MCPS than that offered at Rockville to draw away those who might score higher.
Anonymous wrote:FYI if I was an MCPS administrator looking at where to place an IB magnet in region 1, I would not look at Einstein. Their scores are not good, across all demographic groups.
But their scores would be better if they had a criteria-based regional magnet.
Between Einstein and BCC, sup would definitely favor the latter. So you are really defending an argument that has deemed to fail.
Go back to the "needle" post (10/01/2025 12:47 on page 4).
Sure, the in-place resources at B-CC point towards the IB being there. Same with Humanities. The point is, though, that this arrangement, especially in combination, creates much greater inequity within the region...
...as do the associated local set-asides as long as they are proportionately greater in relation to their local-catchment student populations than the magnet seating afforded to the rest of the region.
Each says something very foul about the assumptions that MCPS decision-makers are making with regard to the worth of the different communities. We thought their aim was equity and their assumption was that "highly capable students are everywhere." It turns out that this is far from their true thoughts on the matter, and it is only to be touted when clearly supporting their proposal, which they know undermines equity when applied to academic rigor.
It seems their view of equity is quite narrow, then. This is a shame, as it enables a prejudice of low expectations that, with this reinforcement, will persist and confound efforts to address even their narrower equity objectives.
With this combined boundary-and-program change effort being their one hail mary opportunity for the foreseeable future, they are calling up a wishbone formation run play. Quite sad.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}