Reply to Article in Bethesda magazine about magnet programs

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Article in Bethesda magazine about magnet programs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think what they are proposing is to make more magnets, but also restrict access to those zones.

So, if you look at what they started to do with IB, they created regional IB programs but kept RMIB as the flagship.

This has been unevenly successful, because the "best" kids still went to RMIB and there were not enough kids at the regional programs to create a strong cohort.

So it will be interesting to see if they learn from that, or double down. [/quote]

IMO part of the problem with the original regional model was the focus it had on shuffling better students to underperforming schools. Regional IB at Kennedy for example. It reduced the appeal of the program. In addition, I don't know if it's still the case, but in the early days there was no option for activity buses for out-of-DCC kids. So it did not give the Regional IB kids the option of participating in some school activities that would be available at home school.  [/quote]

It's a cart-before-the-horse thing.

There are plenty of highly talented students among the tens of thousands in MCPS high schools. If they ensure that all of the highest-level programming will be available in a meaningfully equivalent way in every regional magnet (and not just for the magnet subject), they'll eventually get enough high-performing kids to fill those programs, as they are closer to homes for most.  If they maintain "flagship" magnets (e.g., Blair SMCS, RMIB) as differentiated from other "regional" magnets, this won't happen, as there won't be the same draw to lesser programs.

Part of that which would make regionalization work, where there were groups of a few pyramids, with each group offering the same magnets to their collective local catchments, would be relatively heterogeneous groupings within the constraint of proximity/adjacency.  This may result in less obvious groupings than many would assume, but would spread demand to match capacity and ensure cohort viability.

Additionally, there would need to be a relatively robust allowance for attending a magnet in a proximate grouping, both for those logistical reasons and to ensure reasonably equivalent access to magnet programming.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics