When was the last time a change MCPS made resulted in things getting better and not worse? I don't have much faith in this one.

Anonymous wrote:There was generally more support countywide IB program at RM than at the other high schools. Students were “set up” to succeed and achieve the diploma.

+1 I don't see how they are going to be able to create equally strong IB magnets across MCPS.

For example: RMIB has some IB classes that regional IBs don't, and that is because of the demand. If you make RMIB a regional school, and spread the top IB students across the county, MCPS won't be able to offer the many different IB classes at the regionals that RMIB has because there would be no economies of scale, and that includes RMIB.

This would effectively water down all the IB programs. I guess that makes it more equitable, but MCPS would be kill a shining star.

I have a lot of criticism of MCPS but the one thing they have that is worth it is the many different programming options. Why on earth would they kill one of the best things about this school system in the name of equity?

We moved from a smaller but richer school district out west, and they could not offer mangets or gifted programs because there weren't enough high performing students. This is what is going to happen in MCPS if the kill the county wide program. Such a shame.

Glad to be done with MCPS next year.

Anonymous wrote:I think what they are proposing is to make more magnets, but also restrict access to those zones.

So, if you look at what they started to do with IB, they created regional IB programs but kept RMIB as the flagship.

This has been unevenly successful, because the "best" kids still went to RMIB and there were not enough kids at the regional programs to create a strong cohort.

So it will be interesting to see if they learn from that, or double down.

And keeping RMIB as County wide instead of regional is part of the problem and makes little sense. The idea of regional IB programs makes sense because the goal is to serve all students regardless of area of the county. I like the idea of regions with a standard offering of programs. Nod a program is going to be county wide it needs to be because the facilities have been built to sustain such a program that might be cost prohibitive to build out in 6 or more regions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what they are proposing is to make more magnets, but also restrict access to those zones.

So, if you look at what they started to do with IB, they created regional IB programs but kept RMIB as the flagship.

This has been unevenly successful, because the "best" kids still went to RMIB and there were not enough kids at the regional programs to create a strong cohort.

So it will be interesting to see if they learn from that, or double down.

IMO part of the problem with the original regional model was the focus it had on shuffling better students to underperforming schools. Regional IB at Kennedy for example. It reduced the appeal of the program. In addition, I don't know if it's still the case, but in the early days there was no option for activity buses for out-of-DCC kids. So it did not give the Regional IB kids the option of participating in some school activities that would be available at home school.

It's a cart-before-the-horse thing.

There are plenty of highly talented students among the tens of thousands in MCPS high schools. If they ensure that all of the highest-level programming will be available in a meaningfully equivalent way in every regional magnet (and not just for the magnet subject), they'll eventually get enough high-performing kids to fill those programs, as they are closer to homes for most. If they maintain "flagship" magnets (e.g., Blair SMCS, RMIB) as differentiated from other "regional" magnets, this won't happen, as there won't be the same draw to lesser programs.

Part of that which would make regionalization work, where there were groups of a few pyramids, with each group offering the same magnets to their collective local catchments, would be relatively heterogeneous groupings within the constraint of proximity/adjacency. This may result in less obvious groupings than many would assume, but would spread demand to match capacity and ensure cohort viability.

Additionally, there would need to be a relatively robust allowance for attending a magnet in a proximate grouping, both for those logistical reasons and to ensure reasonably equivalent access to magnet programming.

There was generally more support countywide IB program at RM than at the other high schools. Students were “set up” to succeed and achieve the diploma.

Anonymous wrote:I think what they are proposing is to make more magnets, but also restrict access to those zones.

So, if you look at what they started to do with IB, they created regional IB programs but kept RMIB as the flagship.

This has been unevenly successful, because the "best" kids still went to RMIB and there were not enough kids at the regional programs to create a strong cohort.

So it will be interesting to see if they learn from that, or double down.

IMO part of the problem with the original regional model was the focus it had on shuffling better students to underperforming schools. Regional IB at Kennedy for example. It reduced the appeal of the program. In addition, I don't know if it's still the case, but in the early days there was no option for activity buses for out-of-DCC kids. So it did not give the Regional IB kids the option of participating in some school activities that would be available at home school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I gave up a long time ago on the magnets. We supplement and enrich at home, and my kids are big fish in little ponds at their home schools.

They have better odds at elite school acceptances that way.

I don't know - I heard there were 11 MIT admits from Blair this year, and they have at least 5 Yale showing on the insta. Hard to do a lot better than that. But you have to be at the top of a tough group.

I think what they are proposing is to make more magnets, but also restrict access to those zones.

So, if you look at what they started to do with IB, they created regional IB programs but kept RMIB as the flagship.

This has been unevenly successful, because the "best" kids still went to RMIB and there were not enough kids at the regional programs to create a strong cohort.

So it will be interesting to see if they learn from that, or double down.

Anonymous wrote:I gave up a long time ago on the magnets. We supplement and enrich at home, and my kids are big fish in little ponds at their home schools.

Yeah, there's definitely a point of diminishing returns with magnet programs. If they're more than 15 minutes away from home, don't do it. Not worth the headache in extra travel time. Most students who are sitting on buses for 45 minutes to an hour just to go to a magnet school would be better off doing what you're suggesting.

Anonymous wrote:I gave up a long time ago on the magnets. We supplement and enrich at home, and my kids are big fish in little ponds at their home schools.

They have better odds at elite school acceptances that way.

This is the programs analysis that MCPS is doing.

Anonymous wrote:https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

What do you all think of this? I hope they don't change the requirements or water down the eligibility criteria of the existing magnets PHS, Blair and RM are really good and watering them down in any way would be a net negative for the county as a whole. If they leave the existing magnets functioning the way they are and add more options in local schools, it is not a bad idea.

Anytime they say they’re making changes to “increase equity” you know they’re lowering standards.

I didn't really understand what they're concretely proposing to change--but yes, it makes more sense to offer magnet-esque options in local schools. The way it is now, some kids get better access to magnets in their home schools, while other kids opt out because it takes 45 min-1 hr each way by bus to get to the magnet.

I gave up a long time ago on the magnets. We supplement and enrich at home, and my kids are big fish in little ponds at their home schools.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

What do you all think of this? I hope they don't change the requirements or water down the eligibility criteria of the existing magnets PHS, Blair and RM are really good and watering them down in any way would be a net negative for the county as a whole. If they leave the existing magnets functioning the way they are and add more options in local schools, it is not a bad idea.