Reply to Size & placement of regional magnet programs set to decimate non-host, non-rich schools

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Size & placement of regional magnet programs set to decimate non-host, non-rich schools"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why would any parent send their kids to a watered down “magnet”.  Won’t happen. Look at what they tried to do the IB programs at Watkins mill and Kennedy.  [/quote]

If the watered-down magnet offers much better classes than the home school does, then parents who can swing the logistics and have kids who want to get into selective colleges will almost feel like they have to send their kids to the magnets to get classes they can't get at the home school and have a peer group of academically focused and motivated kids.

[/quote]

How do you know they will be watered down?[/quote]

Even the bare bones curriculum outlines that MCPS presented are watered down versions of the current programs. When they find the smaller cohorts do not have enough students to participate successfully in the current curriculum, they will water it down even more.[/quote]

I think you are double-counting. The "bare bones" curriculum currently outline already includes the "watering down" for smaller cohorts. The further watering down would happen if the parents at more successful kids opt out of the magnet programs, further reducing the academic preparedness and ability of the magnet cohorts.

[/quote]

Top students opt out of attending future magnet -> smaller or less-capable magnet cohort -> further watering down -> poor performance/non-attractive/close-out.
Top students opt in -> smaller cohort than current ones -> relatively OK quality -> more appealing to top student in the region -> draining resource for local HSs.

So both have significant side effects. Why not piloting a 3rd sub-county-wide magnet program, or splitting RMIB coverage into 2-3 regions (similar to Blair vs. Poolsville) to assure the quality and balance between centralized vs. local resource and needs? For those CTE-driven programs, I see bigger problems as there is no survey to what region wants what CTE program.  [/quote]

To quantify this a little bit-- the current magnets generally serve, what, the top 1-2% of students?

The current plans are based on assuming that the academic magnets will serve about 10% of students, but it also assumes that most of those students will want to attend, so that they'll serve students in roughly the top 15% of their grade (and is watered down to reflect that.)

If fewer students are interested, they may need to drop criteria even further, although I can't imagine it could functionally go any further than the top third.  (For reference, roughly one-third of MCPS students take the SAT and earn SAT scores above both CCR benchmarks-- 480 reading/writing and 530 math.  This varies wildly by school, though-- at many schools it is well under 30%: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED675349.pdf)  This would require watering things down further.  [/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