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][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]

Because those CO staffs are busy fighting and censoring criticisms on the public platform like this one. How could they have time to work on making the slides up-to-date or spend more time thinking about implementation plan? If they can shut everyone's mouth up, they don't need to work on improving things, correct? [/quote]

If they [i]clearly[/i] addressed concerns presented, instesd of obscuring/hiding relevant information and trying to run out the clock, they might limit their fight to that directly relevant, rather than that much larger scope generated by the combination of conjecture and misinformation that they invite with the vacuum they create.  Of course, that would mean that they more clearly would be evidencing priorities/motivations, but they should be able to defend those, in any case, if they have chosen them.[/quote]

As a relatively new to MCPS bystander I have two observations:
1. When it comes to MCPS I generally assume incompetence over malice
2. That being said I'm observing some individuals (on DCUM and on other forums) seeming determined to stir $h!t up by making sweeping statements that don't seem true, are deceptive in what they mention and don't mention or are purely speculative. I don't know if this is some sort of strategy to just get more for their (or our as the case may be) schools knowing that MCPS has historically cowed to the loudest voices.

We are zoned for Einstein and that's not likely to change. I've tried to see what is so awful about this for us and I'm not seeing it.  It seems like a reasonable approach. It does seem quite rushed, which does worry me.[/quote]

1) Wait until you have some direct contact on these issues.  Those who have generally know the combination of factors in this skews toward the intentional (if that counts as malice) to an unreasonable degree vs. the lack of resources (if that counts as incompetence).

2) Well noted, but that doesn't mean that there aren't more legitimate concerns expressed and more accurate statements made (perhaps lost in that noise, to a degree).

As far as this being unfavorable to Einstein, consider this:

-- envision a dial/meter, the kind with a needle that swings left or right

-- place Einstein on one side and B-CC on the other

-- on academic opportunity, alone (forget about the neighborhood, etc.), place the needle somewhere along the continuum, according to your preference, based on your preference for your children

-- repeat for your estimation of the interests of a representative sample population of Einstein-zoned and B-CC-zoned families

-- estimate an average needle position

-- if the average needle position isn't close to the center, consider what that position would be if magnet programs were rearranged

I'm guessing you (and most) would find things [i]considerably[/i] closer to the center with something like swapping either the IB magnet or the Humanities magnet (each criteria-based) from B-CC with the Education magnet (interest-based) from Einstein.

This could be expanded to consider all schools within a region, of course.  A similar comparison framework might be used when deciding on capital expenditures to address differences in facilities, but I digress...[/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