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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

As with most things, it’s fundamentally a fairness issue. If most highly performing kids are shut out for one reason or another, and the only people who want to keep the program as-is are those who are currently in it or have been in it, or are in the tiniest of tiny outliers, then you have a fairness issue.

So your solution is to just ignore them?

Well no one is asking me, but my solution isn’t to ignore them (if “them” is the young Sheldons). Public school should provide equal programming across high schools so that top performers can access the same classes wherever they are in the county. There’s no need to ration it if you have enough kids who can handle the classes. You can accommodate the young Sheldons within that, or they can take classes at MCC or wherever, but you shouldn’t shut kids out to cater to people who want things to stay exactly the same because they think the program won’t be as good if more (equally eligible) people can take the classes.

I don’t think we have enough seats in the magnets and I support expanding the number of students admitted. I also think it would be good to add some mid-county magnets that are the equivalent of the current downcounty/upcounty STEM and humanities programs so kids don’t have such long commutes.

However, there’s a big difference in cohort between the top students in one half or one third of the county versus the top students in this or that sixth of the county. Having this many magnet programs shrinks the pools from which you draw students dramatically, and requires significantly more teachers who are up to the challenge of teaching these courses. In the name of increasing access to rigorous programs, we’re abandoning the things that enabled them to be so rigorous. Instead of 1% of students being in top notch programs, we’ll have x% in pretty good programs. That sounds good to people whose children have been denied entry to these programs, but it’s sounds like a misstep to people whose children have benefited from these programs.

Well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushback on the viability of recreating magnet programs on regional basis:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/08/13/mcps-program-changes-concerns/

Good, and we need a lot more of this. It was strategic that they introduced this proposal during the summer, when fewer parents and teachers are paying attention. They sought no input, and they thought they could build momentum for it before there the pushback.

The best comment is the final line: “Because we can have all these wonderful regions … but if we still have a disparity in the outcomes, are we really putting the equity lens on that?” This is what I keep coming back to regarding the proposal: what does it actually fix? What's the point of destroying these great programs? There's no logic or rationale to it.

They are not destroying the programs. They are expanding access to the programs for the great many who are able to handle the rigor but did not have application luck.

They ARE dismantling the magnet programs. There are insufficient teachers who can teach advanced programs. From the article: Taylor said the district’s recommendation includes areas of certification the district offers, but he doesn’t know if there’s interest from faculty to “dive in and hyper-specialize.”

He doesn't know. That means he is making decisions with insufficient information. You can't expand programs without trained, hyper-specialized teachers for those programs.

The actual number of highly able students are insufficient to form regional magnets. We aren't provided information on these numbers because it likely would show that the number of highly able students cab't support rigorous magnets in all regions.

+1 The regional IB programs IBDP pass rate is much lower than RMIB's. That tells you that even the 4 regional programs they created a few years ago aren't as successful. Those programs don't offer some of the HL classes that RMIB does. Why? Because there is not enough interest and probably the teachers don't want to teach it/aren't certified to teach it.

And now MCPS wants to expand it to 6 regionals? Makes zero sense to do that.

Why would Taylor want to break something that is highly successful? I listen to staff, and it seems like they have already made up their minds, but don't really have the data to back up their actions. getting rid of the magnet programming will have negative consequences for the school district.

Who says it's highly successful? A few parents who don't want to change? I don't see it--there's just a few school clusters benefitting from the most selective programs (which points to the issue that the programs are too far away or too inaccessible for some parts of the county).

Any programs that produces more NMSF winners than all other county high schools COMBINED, I would consider them highly successful.

That's your opinion. Perhaps if they expanded their numbers to other sites and to more kids they would produce more NMSF winners. For example, Whitman which produces a strong number of NMSF winners sends few kids to the magnets, because they're so far away.

You’re both wrong. Generally, schools don’t produce NMSF. Those particular kids would achieve those scores no matter which MCPS high school they attended. These programs have high numbers of NMSF because they admit students who are more likely to be NMSF than most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

Exactly. Taylor claims he's moving from a model of scarcity to one of abundance. If that's the case then why not keep the county-wide programs AND create more regional options. Why is this presented as an either/or situation? Why is MCPS cutting down its highest ranking programs to spite itself?

Don't tell me this is about the availability of busses, because what they're proposing is radically expanding transportation needs.

Taylor is dynamiting whatever goodwill or social capital he had coming in as a new superintendent. This plan is totally senseless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushback on the viability of recreating magnet programs on regional basis:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/08/13/mcps-program-changes-concerns/

Good, and we need a lot more of this. It was strategic that they introduced this proposal during the summer, when fewer parents and teachers are paying attention. They sought no input, and they thought they could build momentum for it before there the pushback.

The best comment is the final line: “Because we can have all these wonderful regions … but if we still have a disparity in the outcomes, are we really putting the equity lens on that?” This is what I keep coming back to regarding the proposal: what does it actually fix? What's the point of destroying these great programs? There's no logic or rationale to it.

They are not destroying the programs. They are expanding access to the programs for the great many who are able to handle the rigor but did not have application luck.

They ARE dismantling the magnet programs. There are insufficient teachers who can teach advanced programs. From the article: Taylor said the district’s recommendation includes areas of certification the district offers, but he doesn’t know if there’s interest from faculty to “dive in and hyper-specialize.”

He doesn't know. That means he is making decisions with insufficient information. You can't expand programs without trained, hyper-specialized teachers for those programs.

The actual number of highly able students are insufficient to form regional magnets. We aren't provided information on these numbers because it likely would show that the number of highly able students cab't support rigorous magnets in all regions.

+1 The regional IB programs IBDP pass rate is much lower than RMIB's. That tells you that even the 4 regional programs they created a few years ago aren't as successful. Those programs don't offer some of the HL classes that RMIB does. Why? Because there is not enough interest and probably the teachers don't want to teach it/aren't certified to teach it.

And now MCPS wants to expand it to 6 regionals? Makes zero sense to do that.

Why would Taylor want to break something that is highly successful? I listen to staff, and it seems like they have already made up their minds, but don't really have the data to back up their actions. getting rid of the magnet programming will have negative consequences for the school district.

Who says it's highly successful? A few parents who don't want to change? I don't see it--there's just a few school clusters benefitting from the most selective programs (which points to the issue that the programs are too far away or too inaccessible for some parts of the county).

Any programs that produces more NMSF winners than all other county high schools COMBINED, I would consider them highly successful.

That's your opinion. Perhaps if they expanded their numbers to other sites and to more kids they would produce more NMSF winners. For example, Whitman which produces a strong number of NMSF winners sends few kids to the magnets, because they're so far away.

Most Whitman parent I know have no desire for their kids to attend a different school. Whitman is their first choice.

You don't know every Whitman parent--I know plenty who would send their kid to a magnet if it were closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushback on the viability of recreating magnet programs on regional basis:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/08/13/mcps-program-changes-concerns/

Good, and we need a lot more of this. It was strategic that they introduced this proposal during the summer, when fewer parents and teachers are paying attention. They sought no input, and they thought they could build momentum for it before there the pushback.

The best comment is the final line: “Because we can have all these wonderful regions … but if we still have a disparity in the outcomes, are we really putting the equity lens on that?” This is what I keep coming back to regarding the proposal: what does it actually fix? What's the point of destroying these great programs? There's no logic or rationale to it.

They are not destroying the programs. They are expanding access to the programs for the great many who are able to handle the rigor but did not have application luck.

They ARE dismantling the magnet programs. There are insufficient teachers who can teach advanced programs. From the article: Taylor said the district’s recommendation includes areas of certification the district offers, but he doesn’t know if there’s interest from faculty to “dive in and hyper-specialize.”

He doesn't know. That means he is making decisions with insufficient information. You can't expand programs without trained, hyper-specialized teachers for those programs.

The actual number of highly able students are insufficient to form regional magnets. We aren't provided information on these numbers because it likely would show that the number of highly able students cab't support rigorous magnets in all regions.

+1 The regional IB programs IBDP pass rate is much lower than RMIB's. That tells you that even the 4 regional programs they created a few years ago aren't as successful. Those programs don't offer some of the HL classes that RMIB does. Why? Because there is not enough interest and probably the teachers don't want to teach it/aren't certified to teach it.

And now MCPS wants to expand it to 6 regionals? Makes zero sense to do that.

Why would Taylor want to break something that is highly successful? I listen to staff, and it seems like they have already made up their minds, but don't really have the data to back up their actions. getting rid of the magnet programming will have negative consequences for the school district.

Who says it's highly successful? A few parents who don't want to change? I don't see it--there's just a few school clusters benefitting from the most selective programs (which points to the issue that the programs are too far away or too inaccessible for some parts of the county).

Any programs that produces more NMSF winners than all other county high schools COMBINED, I would consider them highly successful.

That's your opinion. Perhaps if they expanded their numbers to other sites and to more kids they would produce more NMSF winners. For example, Whitman which produces a strong number of NMSF winners sends few kids to the magnets, because they're so far away.

Most Whitman parent I know have no desire for their kids to attend a different school. Whitman is their first choice.

The only reason to live in Whitman zone is to self-segregate from the poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pushback on the viability of recreating magnet programs on regional basis:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/08/13/mcps-program-changes-concerns/

Good, and we need a lot more of this. It was strategic that they introduced this proposal during the summer, when fewer parents and teachers are paying attention. They sought no input, and they thought they could build momentum for it before there the pushback.

The best comment is the final line: “Because we can have all these wonderful regions … but if we still have a disparity in the outcomes, are we really putting the equity lens on that?” This is what I keep coming back to regarding the proposal: what does it actually fix? What's the point of destroying these great programs? There's no logic or rationale to it.

They are not destroying the programs. They are expanding access to the programs for the great many who are able to handle the rigor but did not have application luck.

They ARE dismantling the magnet programs. There are insufficient teachers who can teach advanced programs. From the article: Taylor said the district’s recommendation includes areas of certification the district offers, but he doesn’t know if there’s interest from faculty to “dive in and hyper-specialize.”

He doesn't know. That means he is making decisions with insufficient information. You can't expand programs without trained, hyper-specialized teachers for those programs.

The actual number of highly able students are insufficient to form regional magnets. We aren't provided information on these numbers because it likely would show that the number of highly able students cab't support rigorous magnets in all regions.

+1 The regional IB programs IBDP pass rate is much lower than RMIB's. That tells you that even the 4 regional programs they created a few years ago aren't as successful. Those programs don't offer some of the HL classes that RMIB does. Why? Because there is not enough interest and probably the teachers don't want to teach it/aren't certified to teach it.

And now MCPS wants to expand it to 6 regionals? Makes zero sense to do that.

Why would Taylor want to break something that is highly successful? I listen to staff, and it seems like they have already made up their minds, but don't really have the data to back up their actions. getting rid of the magnet programming will have negative consequences for the school district.

Who says it's highly successful? A few parents who don't want to change? I don't see it--there's just a few school clusters benefitting from the most selective programs (which points to the issue that the programs are too far away or too inaccessible for some parts of the county).

Any programs that produces more NMSF winners than all other county high schools COMBINED, I would consider them highly successful.

That's your opinion. Perhaps if they expanded their numbers to other sites and to more kids they would produce more NMSF winners. For example, Whitman which produces a strong number of NMSF winners sends few kids to the magnets, because they're so far away.

Most Whitman parent I know have no desire for their kids to attend a different school. Whitman is their first choice.

The only reason to live in Whitman zone is to self-segregate from the poors.

Churchill has a similar low share of FARMS students to Whitman and still sends plenty of students to the magnets. Whitman doesn't because it's too far for most kids to lose 2 hours out of their day commuting on top of a busy HS schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as the objective qualification criteria are high (eg, relevant MAP scores are at least 90 percentile “A”), the students should be able to handle the rigor.

In my child’s compacted math class, for example, it is those students with a lowered bar who have been struggling and the teacher adjusted the class so that it is less rigorous. There should be no exceptions to high criteria.

Those who feel their kids need more rigor can do dual enrollment or continue to enrich outside of class like they’ve always done.

Are you talking about offering dual enrollment for any who need that additional rigor, or just those who don't have a cohort at their home school to support an on-site class? The latter is a huge equity issue, placing the burden of dual enrollment logistics disproportionately on those least able to be able to handle that while providing the advantage of on site disproportionately to those with means.

Leaving it to outside enrichment tilts things even more in favor of those with means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

As with most things, it’s fundamentally a fairness issue. If most highly performing kids are shut out for one reason or another, and the only people who want to keep the program as-is are those who are currently in it or have been in it, or are in the tiniest of tiny outliers, then you have a fairness issue.

So your solution is to just ignore them?

Well no one is asking me, but my solution isn’t to ignore them (if “them” is the young Sheldons). Public school should provide equal programming across high schools so that top performers can access the same classes wherever they are in the county. There’s no need to ration it if you have enough kids who can handle the classes. You can accommodate the young Sheldons within that, or they can take classes at MCC or wherever, but you shouldn’t shut kids out to cater to people who want things to stay exactly the same because they think the program won’t be as good if more (equally eligible) people can take the classes.

DP. Not saying there shouldn't be equivalent programming across schools, but do you realize that you are saying in the same breath thst there should be programming coincident with need available to top performers, but not to tippy-top performers?

I agree that there likely are more students who would benefit from the programming of current top magnets. It does not seem that MCPS is willing to keep the "top-ness" of those magnets as they expand.

Let us know when they have indicated that depth and breadth comparable to that currently available at Blair SMCS will be available at the other STEM regionals (and that there won't be several years where that won't be the case). For that matter, let us know when they have indicated that Blair SMCS will keep programming comparable to that which it has today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

As with most things, it’s fundamentally a fairness issue. If most highly performing kids are shut out for one reason or another, and the only people who want to keep the program as-is are those who are currently in it or have been in it, or are in the tiniest of tiny outliers, then you have a fairness issue.

So your solution is to just ignore them?

Well no one is asking me, but my solution isn’t to ignore them (if “them” is the young Sheldons). Public school should provide equal programming across high schools so that top performers can access the same classes wherever they are in the county. There’s no need to ration it if you have enough kids who can handle the classes. You can accommodate the young Sheldons within that, or they can take classes at MCC or wherever, but you shouldn’t shut kids out to cater to people who want things to stay exactly the same because they think the program won’t be as good if more (equally eligible) people can take the classes.

I don’t think we have enough seats in the magnets and I support expanding the number of students admitted. I also think it would be good to add some mid-county magnets that are the equivalent of the current downcounty/upcounty STEM and humanities programs so kids don’t have such long commutes.

However, there’s a big difference in cohort between the top students in one half or one third of the county versus the top students in this or that sixth of the county. Having this many magnet programs shrinks the pools from which you draw students dramatically, and requires significantly more teachers who are up to the challenge of teaching these courses. In the name of increasing access to rigorous programs, we’re abandoning the things that enabled them to be so rigorous. Instead of 1% of students being in top notch programs, we’ll have x% in pretty good programs. That sounds good to people whose children have been denied entry to these programs, but it’s sounds like a misstep to people whose children have benefited from these programs.

Well said

Correction, there are many of us whose children have benefited from magnets programs who are wholly in support of expansion. What I want is a good implementation and communication plan, coupled with a good hiring and training strategy.

I’m also fine with the tippy top classes NOT being offered at the HS. It’s always been an extra nice to have, to be able to access college level classes at a HS. But having a plethora of those for a very few while denying first level acceleration and enrichment for a great many more is inappropriate and it’s long overdue that it’s addressed.

Expectations need to be raised, rigor needs to become standard, and standards need to be defined and kids measured against mastery of those standards. Reporting needs to be based off that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

As with most things, it’s fundamentally a fairness issue. If most highly performing kids are shut out for one reason or another, and the only people who want to keep the program as-is are those who are currently in it or have been in it, or are in the tiniest of tiny outliers, then you have a fairness issue.

So your solution is to just ignore them?

Well no one is asking me, but my solution isn’t to ignore them (if “them” is the young Sheldons). Public school should provide equal programming across high schools so that top performers can access the same classes wherever they are in the county. There’s no need to ration it if you have enough kids who can handle the classes. You can accommodate the young Sheldons within that, or they can take classes at MCC or wherever, but you shouldn’t shut kids out to cater to people who want things to stay exactly the same because they think the program won’t be as good if more (equally eligible) people can take the classes.

I don’t think we have enough seats in the magnets and I support expanding the number of students admitted. I also think it would be good to add some mid-county magnets that are the equivalent of the current downcounty/upcounty STEM and humanities programs so kids don’t have such long commutes.

However, there’s a big difference in cohort between the top students in one half or one third of the county versus the top students in this or that sixth of the county. Having this many magnet programs shrinks the pools from which you draw students dramatically, and requires significantly more teachers who are up to the challenge of teaching these courses. In the name of increasing access to rigorous programs, we’re abandoning the things that enabled them to be so rigorous. Instead of 1% of students being in top notch programs, we’ll have x% in pretty good programs. That sounds good to people whose children have been denied entry to these programs, but it’s sounds like a misstep to people whose children have benefited from these programs.

Well said

Correction, there are many of us whose children have benefited from magnets programs who are wholly in support of expansion. What I want is a good implementation and communication plan, coupled with a good hiring and training strategy.

I’m also fine with the tippy top classes NOT being offered at the HS. It’s always been an extra nice to have, to be able to access college level classes at a HS. But having a plethora of those for a very few while denying first level acceleration and enrichment for a great many more is inappropriate and it’s long overdue that it’s addressed.

Expectations need to be raised, rigor needs to become standard, and standards need to be defined and kids measured against mastery of those standards. Reporting needs to be based off that.

Yes. My family is currently benefitting from the magnet program but at the expense of family time, sleep, etc. The commute is outrageous, but our home school is downright abysmal. I'd happily exchage access to Plate Tectonics for a better peer group and better opportunities at our home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

As with most things, it’s fundamentally a fairness issue. If most highly performing kids are shut out for one reason or another, and the only people who want to keep the program as-is are those who are currently in it or have been in it, or are in the tiniest of tiny outliers, then you have a fairness issue.

So your solution is to just ignore them?

Well no one is asking me, but my solution isn’t to ignore them (if “them” is the young Sheldons). Public school should provide equal programming across high schools so that top performers can access the same classes wherever they are in the county. There’s no need to ration it if you have enough kids who can handle the classes. You can accommodate the young Sheldons within that, or they can take classes at MCC or wherever, but you shouldn’t shut kids out to cater to people who want things to stay exactly the same because they think the program won’t be as good if more (equally eligible) people can take the classes.

I don’t think we have enough seats in the magnets and I support expanding the number of students admitted. I also think it would be good to add some mid-county magnets that are the equivalent of the current downcounty/upcounty STEM and humanities programs so kids don’t have such long commutes.

However, there’s a big difference in cohort between the top students in one half or one third of the county versus the top students in this or that sixth of the county. Having this many magnet programs shrinks the pools from which you draw students dramatically, and requires significantly more teachers who are up to the challenge of teaching these courses. In the name of increasing access to rigorous programs, we’re abandoning the things that enabled them to be so rigorous. Instead of 1% of students being in top notch programs, we’ll have x% in pretty good programs. That sounds good to people whose children have been denied entry to these programs, but it’s sounds like a misstep to people whose children have benefited from these programs.

Well said

Correction, there are many of us whose children have benefited from magnets programs who are wholly in support of expansion. What I want is a good implementation and communication plan, coupled with a good hiring and training strategy.

I’m also fine with the tippy top classes NOT being offered at the HS. It’s always been an extra nice to have, to be able to access college level classes at a HS. But having a plethora of those for a very few while denying first level acceleration and enrichment for a great many more is inappropriate and it’s long overdue that it’s addressed.

Expectations need to be raised, rigor needs to become standard, and standards need to be defined and kids measured against mastery of those standards. Reporting needs to be based off that.

Yes. My family is currently benefitting from the magnet program but at the expense of family time, sleep, etc. The commute is outrageous, but our home school is downright abysmal. I'd happily exchage access to Plate Tectonics for a better peer group and better opportunities at our home school.

Who doesn't want that? Everyone does. But realistically, that won't happen because MCPS won't be able to find enough good, qualified teachers to teach those very advanced courses. It would be in name only without the teacher quality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

Public schools can differentiate to meet the needs of a variety of student cohorts. If magnet schooling isn't something you see happening for your student, MCPS has plenty of other choices. The school district doesn't need to stop the current magnets to provide additional programming. Why is this an either/or situation?

As with most things, it’s fundamentally a fairness issue. If most highly performing kids are shut out for one reason or another, and the only people who want to keep the program as-is are those who are currently in it or have been in it, or are in the tiniest of tiny outliers, then you have a fairness issue.

So your solution is to just ignore them?

Well no one is asking me, but my solution isn’t to ignore them (if “them” is the young Sheldons). Public school should provide equal programming across high schools so that top performers can access the same classes wherever they are in the county. There’s no need to ration it if you have enough kids who can handle the classes. You can accommodate the young Sheldons within that, or they can take classes at MCC or wherever, but you shouldn’t shut kids out to cater to people who want things to stay exactly the same because they think the program won’t be as good if more (equally eligible) people can take the classes.

DP. Not saying there shouldn't be equivalent programming across schools, but do you realize that you are saying in the same breath thst there should be programming coincident with need available to top performers, but not to tippy-top performers?

I agree that there likely are more students who would benefit from the programming of current top magnets. It does not seem that MCPS is willing to keep the "top-ness" of those magnets as they expand.

Let us know when they have indicated that depth and breadth comparable to that currently available at Blair SMCS will be available at the other STEM regionals (and that there won't be several years where that won't be the case). For that matter, let us know when they have indicated that Blair SMCS will keep programming comparable to that which it has today.

You really don’t need the depth and breadth offered by the Blair STEM magnet to launch successful regional programs. No student will be harmed if they somehow lose the opportunity to take quantum mechanics in high school. If you have a young sheldon on your hands, which there are not more than 5-6 kids across the county in a given year, there are other ways to provide enrichment (Johns Hopkins CTY comes to mind). A tiny percentage of kids may find their options decreasing but regional magnets will benefit a much larger pool of kids. And if your kid is truly exceptional, they should probably be going to college a year earlier. I went to college at 17 rather than 18 for example

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

I know--the parents of the 4th grader are ridiculous and sounded super entitled. No one knows how that kid will evolve, and yes, it's easier than ever nowadays for an advanced kid to enroll into more advanced coursework online--you don't need to hold back kids in MCPS from having more advanced work out of some overly optimistic belief that you have Young Sheldon as a kid.

Ha ha! Yes. The parents quoted in the article are completely ridiculous and undermined the entire argument to keep the existing magnet structure. Could they not find better quotes?

[Anonymous]

I might have the wrong type or unpopular type of view of these things.

But our kids didn't get into the GT or magnet programs. There were a couple of years where they made it to the lottery but didn't get selected. The same with some of their classmates and our neighbors.

Personally for our family we were okay with it.

The GT, IB and magnet programs are supposed to be for the academically elite, where only the top get in. We were perfectly fine with our kids not making it and going to our local school and is one of the reasons why we chose to live where we do.

As others are trying to say, if you increase the number and seats of the programs, it dilutes the programs and isn't as rigorous or advanced like how the programs are now. Which people are saying they are okay with because it suits the needs of the many instead of the very few.

But another way of looking at it, is that maybe MCPS should be focusing on improving the instruction and quality at their individual schools. So those students who don't get in to the county wide programs (either by not quite qualifying or just not get selected by the lottery) will still get the class selection and level that that they need. Instead of having some mediocre programs that might not be better than some of the local schools around here. And the issue with the offering of the potentially mediocre is that it sounds like they're going to change the current countywide program which is considered top tier.

I had to stop myself from posting in this thread:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1287572.page

Because know that people will attack me as entitled. But I think there's something very wrong if a school doesn't have a track for students to take Algebra I by seventh grade and they have to look to going to a different school just to get on that track. But that just goes to show how there are different standards at different schools within the county and this is starting at elementary school. By the time students get to high school and eligible for these magnet/regional programs, students from different schools won't be on the same level based on the math tracks offered by their elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not find the parents arguments for keeping the system as is in the Bethesda magazine article convincing at all. One parent mentioned how her kid got to take quantum mechanics at Blair. No one needs to take quantum mechanics in HS and if that is indeed your jam, you can take a college class for it.
Also, parents of a 4th grader expressing concern that their kid is on track to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade and what will the kid do then. Almost no students are ready to take multivariable calculus in 9th grade. And if they are, then take the next class at MC or UMD or virtual. Public school systems are not designed to serve the tiniest of tiny percentage of outliers. There is a case for regional magnets

I know--the parents of the 4th grader are ridiculous and sounded super entitled. No one knows how that kid will evolve, and yes, it's easier than ever nowadays for an advanced kid to enroll into more advanced coursework online--you don't need to hold back kids in MCPS from having more advanced work out of some overly optimistic belief that you have Young Sheldon as a kid.

Ha ha! Yes. The parents quoted in the article are completely ridiculous and undermined the entire argument to keep the existing magnet structure. Could they not find better quotes?

Do you not think that Bethesda Magazine sets it up that way? Have you not read many of their other articles? They basically serve as a government mouthpiece on matters edging into local politics, whether that is with softball questions to officials or by facilitating strawman portrayals of opposition.

Of course, finding more level reporting is a rarity these days...