Reply to County-wide magnet/IB/GE/Humanity programs will become regional programs if the secondary program plan is passed

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "County-wide magnet/IB/GE/Humanity programs will become regional programs if the secondary program plan is passed"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Okay here's a compromise idea.  What about getting on board with the regional plan, but also advocating for a small set-aside of a certain number of seats per year (25? 40? not sure the number needed) at a couple of the key regional magnets like Blair and RMIB for out-of-of bounds kids who have extremely high qualifications/are profoundly gifted?

That way more kids could get into magnets overall and have them closer to their homes, the very brightest kids would still have a cohort of similar kids concentrated in one place to be able to take very high level courses (probably not 100% of the ones they get now, but many of them), and rather than having to sell MCPS on the extra cost of keeping all the countywide programs *and* adding 6 new regional programs, a few schools would essentially have a hybrid regional/countywide program which would make it more affordable. [/quote]

This seems like the most win-win solution and also the most likely to actually succeed. MCPS gets its shift to a regional model, Blair and RMIB get to keep most of what keeps them special while becoming regional/countywide hybrids, the tiny sliver of kids who really need to be centralized countywide still can be, and the supporters of the regional model and of the flagship countywide programs can work together rather than fight each other.[/quote]

We need to first understand the current student makeup of the Blair Magnet program. If 80% of the students are currently from outside the region, shifting that to just 20% won’t be enough to preserve the program. 
[/quote]

You don't need to look at the current make up, you need to look at the waitlisted kids.  Plenty of DCC smart kids to take the slots.  W schools have upper level classes and families moved there for a reason.  They should not take up DCC slots.[/quote]

I get it now. DCC wants more Blair seats so they are trying to exclude W students. [/quote]

No it is just the same Einstein parent over and over I think. Let’s not take the bait. This person is locked into a position.[/quote]

Not at Einstein.  But, why should students with more opportunities take slots away from students who don't have the same opportunities?  If you want Blair, move.[/quote]

I don’t want Blair! Good grief my kid would hate it.

I do think that magnet opportunities should be equitably offered and that students who would benefit should not be excluded because of their zip code.

The presentation last night said the goal is for all schools to have the same core set of advanced courses and for all students to have access to similar magnet offerings. How is that not a good thing?!?!?
Why would hoarding opportunity for something that people claim is so special (Blair STEM) to one geographic region be a good policy?
It isn’t accurate to say DCC doesn’t have advanced courses. Einstein doesn’t have MV. That isn’t solved by limiting Blair STEM to DCC[/quote]

Instead of focusing on magnet, start by meeting all kids' needs at their home schools, then add specialty programs.  If Blair is limited to DCC students, DCC students who need MV can go to Blair or Wheaton, which are the only two schools that offer it.  Your kids have tons of opportunities that our kids don't have.  First equalize things.  [/quote]

I agree. Maybe in addition to program analysis there needs to be a core offering analysis to ensure equity of offerings at all schools. This seems more important to me than programs. Strengthen all home schools is essential and should happen first. There needs to be better information about what is actually offered at each school rather than vague statements like school A has more than school B. If that is true, it is a problem to solve so a thorough analysis of the problem should happen followed by a cause analysis and a solution proposal.[/quote]

The program analysis team claims it is doing this. But then you see slides emphasizing the importance of honors courses in all schools without the acknowledgement that honors for all
Means honors for none. [/quote]

There's a huge difference between honors for all (all students go to the same course, which is termed "honors") and ensuring honors classes are [i]offered[/i] at all schools (not all students go to the same course, but any qualified student gets the honors opportunity).

In the first, due to difficulties with employing differentiation in large classes with limited resources/training, schools with small honors-level student cohorts typically provide less of the honors experience (needing to dedicate most of the time to the bulk of the class) than at schools with larger honors-level student cohorts (where the bulk of the time can be spent on them, or better if the classes, themselves, get cohorted by ability despite having the same title).[/quote]

PP you responded to and I agree. But when MCOS says that all schools should have honors courses, they mean what we have now—they are not saying true honors or some other modifier to indicate it is different from what they have now [/quote]

They talked about it in the context of preparing kids for AP and IB courses.  Not sure what exactly that means for how they would implement it but that was the framing.[/quote]

They said during the grading change meeting that they were also doing an audit of honors courses, separate from the program analysis.[/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