Reply to Program analysis webinars

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Program analysis webinars"

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]At least in region 1 this seems like they’re hurting the DCC schools in favor of helping the schools in wealthier areas because they’re placing the more academically rigorous programs in Whitman and BCC and then reserving a third of the spots for kids zoned for those schools. Meaning kids from less resourced areas are less likely to get into more academically rigorous programs even if they have the identical academic credentials as kids in wealthier areas. This is the opposite of the district’s stated values. How does CO spin this one?[/quote]

That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials. [/quote]

East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.[/quote]

I imagine it's because Whitman already offers a lot more language classes than most schools, and it would allow more students from across the region to be able to take those classes.[/quote]

DP.

As long as they provide fulsome access to the other school catchments in the region, that's fine.  They have to distribute magnets, and it helps more to have one like SMCS/STEM, IB or Humanities, which would tend to draw the highest proportion of academically inclined students, in a school where the catchment's proportion is lower to facilitate a cohort for higher-end classes outside of the magnet population.

The proposed Whitman magnets need to be relatively large to allow relative relief from overcrowding among the region's eastern schools -- from what we've seen, they will have a difficult time addressing that adequately via the boundary study.  And they need to abandon the local set-aside seats for the magnets being proportionately larger than the local catchment population with regard to the rest of the region.

The real problem in Region 1 (other than the disproportionate local set-asides, which affect all schools/regions) is the concentration of 2 criteria-based academic-drawing magnets being placed at B-CC instead of at the schools to the east that would have a greater need of such to maintain that cohort to enable higher-end classes.  Students from Einstein & Northwood who &quot;miss the cut&quot; (and the cut would be pretty sharp due to that local set-aside paired with the limited seats) but have higher academic need may be left without, whereas the in situ cohorts at Whitman and B-CC would facilitate higher level classes without these magnets.  Blair, both from its sheer size and from the academic draw of its own magnets, shouldn't have the same problem.

Alternately, they could simply ensure that higher-end classes (and that list they published as &quot;available&quot; at all schools would need to be expanded/refined to include things like MVC and AP Physics C) are held locally no matter how many (n&gt;0, of course) students wish to take them.  What we've heard, there, is less than encouraging, as they've hedged against this in any discourse.[/quote]

Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?[/quote]
[b]That is another thing I learned from the webinar: MCPS has changed their proposal for humanities programs to criteria based in all six regions. The squeaky wheel works—please continue to be loud about what matters to you[/b].[/quote]

Hmmm, I missed that-and it is not reflected on the current available slide. It shows that Sherwood's Humanities program will not be criteria-based.[/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