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

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

Yeah I’m not going to be upset that kids are getting industry recognized certifications because that doesn’t have to go against rigor and is actually helpful. Some of ya’ll clearly don’t understand the 2025+ college admission landscape or the job market.

If you are majoring in the Arts, having an Adobe or CADD certification is in your interest.  If you’re claiming to want to go into medicine, having a clinical related certificate is in your favor as it shows interest and commitment. Not to mention it understands the response not everyone is actually going to be Pre-Med and make it to becoming a doctor and there are lots of other Science/Medicine avenues.

Oh and this comment about “MCPS is only interested in checking a box on the state regs”, makes it seem like MCPS has a choice in whether they check this box or not.   It’s a state regulation, and MCPS generally gets a bunch of focus from the state on things like this, so I can certainly understand them trying to find ways to help make policy things reality that often are ambiguous and don’t have enough funding tied to them.[/quote]

At the cost of killing rigor and eating the pie of basic education? This is chasing the top without watering the roots. You only get dead trees at the end.[/quote]

How is rigor being killed in the regional model?[/quote]

The criteria-based program will use low-bar, local norm and lottery. The staffing budget is 20% or less for a magnet program in the future compared to now. The sample STEM curriculum eliminates more than half of the junior and senior selectives, and math is one year slower than what SMcS currently have. Do I need to elaborate more? [/quote]

Where does anything say that electives are eliminated?  All I've seen is potential map of what one student's progress could look like through a program and it still had space for said student to choose their own electives.  Additionally, I've yet to believe or be sold on why any student needs to be on track for MV (in the current track) in order to have a rigorous HS education.

The basic education is what needs to come up which is actually the roots. If anything, this should force people to advocate for that. Heck the grading changes alone seem to be bringing a spotlight to that.[/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