Making the most of the MCPS sessions on regional model 10/22 and 10/27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://form.jotform.com/252966011384155

Call on the super and the BOE to separate the program study from the boundary study

No! They are related and should be done together. The big choice program study came out 10 or more years now. Time to make changes in a system that isn't working.[/quote

Man, you central office staffers are so obvious. We are not saying not to make any changes to programs. We are saying not to rush through the changes and make them stupidly, and then shove them through without any opportunities for the community to let you know what they want or don't want, and without any opportunities for the community to make suggestions to improve things because apparently you think you're geniuses and there couldn't possibly be anything valuable in listening to our thoughts and ideas...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

I agree with you. Standardized tests results, by the high school level, indicate readiness and should not be locally normed or recalculated. A student from a low performing school who gets a percentile score in the 60s that gets locally normed to 85th percentile is not demonstrating enough academic proficiency to be a fit for these programs where currently kids with tippy top scores need to work extraordinarily hard to keep up and succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+ 1 those schools also already have numerous AP courses that give college credit. Whitman has 9 AP social studies courses. GMAFB. They don't need a humanities "certification" and they definitely don't need to bring in 200 high achieving kids from other schools. Has nobody at central office heard of cream skimming and why you don't place magnets at wealthy schools? I can't believe they are daring to use the word equity for this disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+1

Plus there are LOTS of schools without academic magnets right now. Clarksburg, Rockville, Northwood, Woodward, Paint Branch etc etc. They did NOT need to select the lowest FARMS school in each of the 6 regions for the Humanities magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

I don't believe you.
Where is there anything about IB Diploma in the Blueprint metrics?

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/Blueprint-Aligned-Metrics-One-Pager-4-2025-A.pdf


https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/CCR-Standard-Policy-Adopted-03-2025-A.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

If it’s so desirable, why aren’t current students and parents clamoring for it? You don’t see anyone on DCUM begging for more certified nursing assistant classes the way you see parents asking for multivariable calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

I agree with you. Standardized tests results, by the high school level, indicate readiness and should not be locally normed or recalculated. A student from a low performing school who gets a percentile score in the 60s that gets locally normed to 85th percentile is not demonstrating enough academic proficiency to be a fit for these programs where currently kids with tippy top scores need to work extraordinarily hard to keep up and succeed.

Local norms are good for **local** programs. It's insane that this has to be spelled out for MCPS!

If they want to host multiple local programs in the same building so they can share some OTHER shared resource, sure, that's great.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone link to evidence that shows that criteria program are going to lottery? Is there a video recording?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+ 1 those schools also already have numerous AP courses that give college credit. Whitman has 9 AP social studies courses. GMAFB. They don't need a humanities "certification" and they definitely don't need to bring in 200 high achieving kids from other schools. Has nobody at central office heard of cream skimming and why you don't place magnets at wealthy schools? I can't believe they are daring to use the word equity for this disgrace.

The "Humanities" program is mainly a renaming of the existing AP program, and inviting students from other schools to attend.

What's wrong with "cream skimming"???
That's exactly what parents have been begging for, to give advanced kids access to advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone link to evidence that shows that criteria program are going to lottery? Is there a video recording?

There is a link to a recording of the 10/22 webinar at the top of this page:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

Maybe someone who watched it can provide an idea of when in the presentation they got to that question.

[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:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

This program model will make that worse. It’s all intended to meet MD Blueprint goals. IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

The other Blueprint goal they’re chasing is 45% of students getting a professional certification by the time they graduate. The bioscience and healthcare pathways are geared toward that, not toward prepping kids for premed like the Wheaton biomed program. In the MCPS slides for the new programs, kids don’t even start biomed courses until 10th grade. In 9th grade they take grade-level biology and an engineering class.

The arts pathways do the same thing. They want kids taking business classes and getting an Adobe certification in tenth grade. Don’t get me wrong; taking classes on entrepreneurship are great if you’re going to be an independent contractor someday. But that’s not why MCPS is doing this.

They’re also pushing early childhood development certification, machine learning and data science certification, and they even suggested making Navy JROTC a magnet.

IMO only programs that will offer rich educational value are independent exploration are the legacy SMCS magnets at Blair and Poolesville, RMIB, and the humanities magnets. BTW, those humanities magnets will be at the richest school in every region. No CTE certifications for Churchill and Whitman, amirite? Save those for the poor kids.

MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs. They don’t care if the programs are any good. They aren’t trying to add enrichment. They’re chasing numbers.

Don’t believe me? Compare these CTE pathways to the slides from the 10/16 BoE meeting. It’s basically a copy-paste.

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/programs/Pages/CTE/standards.aspx

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMJHXR4AA9BD/$file/Boundary%20Studies%20Program%20Analysis%20Update%20251016%20PPT%20REV.pdf

One reason the humanities criteria programs are being placed at the "rich school" is because many of those schools do not currently have a county wide or regional program. Rather than taking a program that exists in one school and moving it to another, MCPS seems to be placing the newish humanities magnets in schools that don't have a program. I think certification is a desirable path for many students and with this model all students will have access.

Sometimes programs mostly intended to help one group succeed when they are designed to impact everyone. Kind of like social security. Billionaires don't need their checks like my grandmother does but having everyone invested is part of social security has (imperfectly) worked.

The schools that don’t have magnets already largely never NEEDED magnets to improve enrollment or performance. MCPS is turning magnets into “everybody gets a trophy.”

+ 1 those schools also already have numerous AP courses that give college credit. Whitman has 9 AP social studies courses. GMAFB. They don't need a humanities "certification" and they definitely don't need to bring in 200 high achieving kids from other schools. Has nobody at central office heard of cream skimming and why you don't place magnets at wealthy schools? I can't believe they are daring to use the word equity for this disgrace.

The "Humanities" program is mainly a renaming of the existing AP program, and inviting students from other schools to attend.

What's wrong with "cream skimming"???
That's exactly what parents have been begging for, to give advanced kids access to advanced classes.

Jfc you couldn't even be bothered to do a basic Google search?

Here you go:

Cream skimming in schools is bad because it leads to greater segregation and inequality by selectively enrolling high-achieving students while leaving more challenging students to traditional public schools. This practice harms public schools by reducing their resources and student base, concentrates disadvantaged students in public schools, and can create a system where schools with the highest needs are left with the fewest resources.
Negative consequences of cream skimming
Increased segregation: Cream skimming can lead to more segregation by ability and socioeconomic status, as schools that "skim" enroll students who are easier to teach, leaving more challenging students behind in other schools.
Undermines public schools: When higher-achieving students are siphoned off, public schools are left with a higher concentration of students with greater needs, which can impact test scores and resources.
Hinders the mission of equal opportunity: Critics argue that the practice goes against the goal of public education by providing more resources and opportunities to some students while neglecting others.
Inaccurate representation of school quality: Schools that cream skim can create a false impression of superior performance by using their selective enrollment to boost test scores, which doesn't reflect their actual educational model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

IB completion rates are one Blueprint measure, so MCPS will want to enroll students they think will complete IB diplomas; not students they fear will falls short for any reason.

I don't believe you.
Where is there anything about IB Diploma in the Blueprint metrics?

https://www.marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/Blueprint-Aligned-Metrics-One-Pager-4-2025-A.pdf


https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/CCR-Standard-Policy-Adopted-03-2025-A.pdf

Scroll to the section titled Criteria for Success. It’s on page 12 of that section (page 30 of the PDF).

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/meeting_material/2022/aib%20-%20133089464452432798%20-%20MSDE%20-%20Blueprint%20Implementation%20Plan%20Guidance%20Document%2020220928%20(1).pdf