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][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]
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.[/quote]

That's great to hear.

But agreed that it is deeply problematic to have both the IB and the humanities academic magnets at BCC for several reasons:

1)  The local set-asides will mean a disproportionate number of richer BCC kids get in. Also far more accepted BCC students will attend due to convenience since it's their local school. This is bad enough for one magnet academic program there, let alone two.  
2). Magnet academic programs should be placed in ways that increase diversity at poorer schools, and also make it more likely than lower SES kids attend because it is more convenient to attend when it's at their local school.  Putting them at BCC rather than a DCC school doesn't accomplish that.  Give BCC the more CTE-focused programs (and Whitman theoretically, although I doubt kids would be willing to actually travel that far for them.)
3)  Kids who want IB classes will likely pick the IB magnet-- humanities magnet programs should have significant numbers of AP classes available because humanities magnet families will want AP. IB and Humanities programs should be at two different schools (unless a school can support the full complement of both AP and IB classes which seems unlikely.)

Maybe they do have to have either IB or humanities at BCC, but they definitely shouldn't have both there.  They should put one or both at DCC schools (ideally Einstein and/or Northwood, but there's a case for humanities at Blair since they have the existing CAP program.) But there is zero good reason to have a criteria-based humanities program at BCC.[/quote]

I think you don’t really know a whole lot about BCC and just have an image or impression you’ve made up. It’s very diverse and has plenty of SES and racial diversity. The IB program is being located there because it is already successful and in place in a slightly different format and uses resources efficiently (staff who are IB certified and trained, etc.). That said, the full IB diploma involves quite a lot of core courses and it may be more appealing to pair it with a criteria based humanities pathway option that doesn’t dominate a student’s required courses quite so rigidly. Right now BCC kids can access the IB courses à la carte without pursuing the full diploma, which is different than other countywide magnets. Not sure the specifics of what the amended program will be.

Also, it’s your opinion that magnet programs should be placed in poorer schools as a diversity tool. That is not everyone’s opinion. Especially when they are creating so many new magnets/programs at once, you need to be a bit practical in placing ones where infrastructure exists. And every school will have at least one program! And it’s also totally ok if kids don’t want to do a specialized program, which is most kids. [/quote]

I mean, yeah, BCC is not as rich and white as Whitman, if that's what you mean?  But it's only around 20% FARMS and 10% EML, lower than most other schools besides the Ws, whereas Einstein, Blair, and Northwood are all around twice those rates or more.  It's around half-white, one of the whitest schools in the county, whereas Einstein, Northwood, and Blair are about a quarter white or less.  I know BCC families like to tell themselves the school is super diverse, but I think you're comparing it in your head to the Ws or maybe to your own childhood experiences in a much whiter school district or something.  Compared to MCPS as a whole and Region 1 in particular, it is absolutely richer and less diverse than most.[/quote]

DP here with child zoned for Einstein

I'm struggling to understand your approach. Do you think all criteria based programs should be located at low income schools? Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

So 5 out of 7 are in current DCC schools with higher FARMS rates than BCC. I'm just not sure what the problem is. BCC isn't even that far from most of the Einstein area and Einstein will still have its existing local IB program. Einstein also has a lower FARMS rate than Blair or Northwood.

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?[/quote]

I'm this PP (and the previous nested post the person was replying to) but I think you may be attributing additional posts to me as well?

But my point is that there are 3 academic criteria-based programs per region: SMCS, IB, and Humanities (or 4, I guess, if you count the medical science one-- let's err on the side of including that.)  The proposal its to have 2 of those at BCC, one at Blair, and one at Northwood.  In other words, half of them are at BCC (including both options for non-STEM-focused kids) and the 3 DCC schools have two between the three of them (assuming that the medical science one even is a rigorous academic program and not primarily focused on CNA prep and the like.)

BCC will have a large local set-aside leaving kids from the 3 DCC schools to compete for a limited number of spots in the IB and Humanities programs (and that's assuming few kids from Whitman go since they haven't historically-- if that changes, there'll be even fewer spots for DCC kids.)  Meanwhile, a school like Einstein with no academic criteria-based programs will likely lose a good number of their higher-scoring and/or better-off kids to the academic programs elsewhere, meaning the academic offerings there will decline, as will the performing arts offerings when those top kids leave for Northwood. It may still be a good school for visual arts but on all other fronts it will likely decline.[/quote]

It seems like you are assigning the term "academically rigorous" (or not academically rigorous) to programs that don't exist yet in order to justify your argument that Einstein is getting screwed. They are proposing medical science, a new criteria based program, and healthcare, an existing interest based program that includes the nursing assistant and CNA programs you are referring to, for Northwood. Medical science is quite likely to be "academically rigorous". I am not super familiar with the CAP program at Blair but my understanding is it is pretty rigorous as well.[/quote]

I said I was giving the medical science program the benefit of the doubt that it will be just as academically strong and desirable as the others.  That still means there are two criteria-based academic programs at BCC and two at the three DCC schools combined, including zero at Einstein.

Einstein doesn't gain anything from this plan, only loses (Blair too, although I think they will lose less and be in better shape afterwards than Einstein.) Meanwhile BCC gains a lot.

And by the way I am not the person who's been posting a lot lately about this being bad for Einstein. I'm a totally different person.[/quote]

This is an anonymous forum. I'm not sure why you are so fixated on distinguishing yourself from someone else when I am addressing points that you are making.

What does Einstein "lose" in this plan? My understanding is it keeps VAC and local IB? [/quote]

1) Einstein will lose VAPA.  They may technically be able to keep it, but it will go from being a large and strong performing arts program drawing talented and passionate kids from 5 different DCC schools, to a tiny program serving only in-bounds Einstein kids (minus the most talented and passionate ones who will go to the magnet at Northwood instead.)

2) Einstein will lose out academically.  [b]Probably about 10%-15% of its top kids will go to academic magnets at other schools, [/b]and it will have no academic magnets of its own to tempt them to stay or attract smart kids from other schools to balance that out.  It will be able to offer fewer high level academic classes and the school will suffer accordingly.  It may not have enough interest locally to continue offering IB-- certainly not enough to offer both IB and AP options for many classes.

Altogether, it's likely that (unless they're really into visual arts) Einstein will become a school that kids try to get away from if they can, rather than its current status of being a school that many kids try to get into.  A big loss. [/quote]

And that's based on what exactly? We don't even know what Einstein's new boundaries will be yet, and you're making pronouncements on how many of these unknown students will go to magnets.[/quote]

Based on MCPS examples which suggest there will be around 50-60 out-of-bounds kids per grade per magnet.  That times 4 academic magnets equals about 200-240 academic magnet spots in the region per grade.  Assume about 1/4-1/3 of those kids come from Einstein and that's 60-80 Einstein kids leaving per grade (assuming the spots are split roughly evenly among the 4 other schools in the region, or more likely 3 since Whitman kids rarely leave.)  Einstein will presumably have around 400 kids per grade (building capacity.). So potentially the top 15-20% honestly but I was trying to be conservative in my estimates. [/quote]

Actually, to be scrupulously precise here, if you want to assume the share of non-local academic magnet seats going to Einstein kids is instead in the 20-30% range because it's smaller, you're talking 40-75 kids leaving per grade, so 10%-17% of each grade leaving for academic magnets (assuming everything is proportional-- I suspect instead Einstein will see more than their share of top kids choosing to leave rather than stay.)  And again, all the other schools get top academic kids coming in rather than just going out so it comes closer to balancing out (or in BCC's case, they'll likely draw in far more than they lose.). Einstein is basically purely an "exporter" or academically-minded kids (unless they happen to coincidentally overlap with the visual arts or education magnet kids coming in, but neither of those will be selected based on academics.)[/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