PP, that’s interesting history about the current setup, but MCPS is redrawing boundaries at the same time. In fact they argue they HAVE to do the switch to the 6-region model at the same time because they interact. So why re-create inequities when their stated purpose is to give access to all students regardless of their address?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

This only happens when the host school is behind in that certain subject. If host school is already those resourceful schools, this gives them a further inequitable share.

Let's think of it in a positive way: the set-aside also sets the upper limit for the host school to not let the program become their own local program. Does it make it sound better?

No, because there was no commitment that host school students would not also be applicants for the seats that are not set aside.

Remember that the magnet program we’re initially created as a way to shift student population around from over enrolled areas to under enrolled ones. When they create a magnet program (lottery or criteria based) they are determining a maximum number of seats for out of boundary students to attend the school. This affects the capacity of the school as a whole. For example, when RMIB was created it was intended to bring 100 students per cohort to the school. There are students already attending the school may be interested and qualified for the program. If they were considered as part of the 100, the school wouldn’t necessarily bring enough students to the school. So instead an ADDITIONAL 25 seats was added and reserved for in bounds students. These students don’t change the total number of students at the school. They do change the number of students in the program, which affects internal scheduling. The initial proportion seems to be set to end up with roughly 2, 3, or 4 sections of students in the program (60, 90, 120) and some guesstimate of the anticipated initial balance. (Which is why Global has one more section than SMCS and Humanities at Poolesville. It was a high demand local program first.)

The home school applicants and out of area applicants are considered as two separate groups. In years past, I have seen where they don’t fill all the home school seats and took extra from out of area, but not the other way around. Over time people move in bounds for a popular program (e.g. RM) and they have plenty of qualified applicants to fill up both sets of seats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

I could see that if the host school were guaranteed a PROPORTIONAL share of seats. But they were talking about giving 1 school out of 5, not 20% of seats, but 33%.

Yes, exactly. This would make sense. The issue is that people like Jeannie Franklin have somehow internalized the idea that "giving the host school extra seats is best" based on past examples of advanced academic magnets placed in high-FARMS schools, and apparently doesn't have the mental flexibility to realize that applying this to give Whitman more humanities seats than Northwood is outrageous.

True. But this is a proposal right? Hopefully someone will make these comments.

This is why it's so infuriating that there is nowhere to even make comments. Why are they so dead-set against gathering feedback?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program no creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

I could see that if the host school were guaranteed a PROPORTIONAL share of seats. But they were talking about giving 1 school out of 5, not 20% of seats, but 33%.

Yes, exactly. This would make sense. The issue is that people like Jeannie Franklin have somehow internalized the idea that "giving the host school extra seats is best" based on past examples of advanced academic magnets placed in high-FARMS schools, and apparently doesn't have the mental flexibility to realize that applying this to give Whitman more humanities seats than Northwood is outrageous.

True. But this is a proposal right? Hopefully someone will make these comments.

We all need to make these comments. Repeatedly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

I could see that if the host school were guaranteed a PROPORTIONAL share of seats. But they were talking about giving 1 school out of 5, not 20% of seats, but 33%.

Yes, exactly. This would make sense. The issue is that people like Jeannie Franklin have somehow internalized the idea that "giving the host school extra seats is best" based on past examples of advanced academic magnets placed in high-FARMS schools, and apparently doesn't have the mental flexibility to realize that applying this to give Whitman more humanities seats than Northwood is outrageous.

True. But this is a proposal right? Hopefully someone will make these comments.

It’s sad that these things — basic fairness — have to be pointed out to the people in charge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

I could see that if the host school were guaranteed a PROPORTIONAL share of seats. But they were talking about giving 1 school out of 5, not 20% of seats, but 33%.

Yes, exactly. This would make sense. The issue is that people like Jeannie Franklin have somehow internalized the idea that "giving the host school extra seats is best" based on past examples of advanced academic magnets placed in high-FARMS schools, and apparently doesn't have the mental flexibility to realize that applying this to give Whitman more humanities seats than Northwood is outrageous.

True. But this is a proposal right? Hopefully someone will make these comments.

It's total BS. Programs are placed wherever and all kids no matter the home school have an equal chance of getting in.

Why can’t they have an equal quota/set aside for each school? That sounds fair to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

I could see that if the host school were guaranteed a PROPORTIONAL share of seats. But they were talking about giving 1 school out of 5, not 20% of seats, but 33%.

Yes, exactly. This would make sense. The issue is that people like Jeannie Franklin have somehow internalized the idea that "giving the host school extra seats is best" based on past examples of advanced academic magnets placed in high-FARMS schools, and apparently doesn't have the mental flexibility to realize that applying this to give Whitman more humanities seats than Northwood is outrageous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

This only happens when the host school is behind in that certain subject. If host school is already those resourceful schools, this gives them a further inequitable share.

Let's think of it in a positive way: the set-aside also sets the upper limit for the host school to not let the program become their own local program. Does it make it sound better?

No, because there was no commitment that host school students would not also be applicants for the seats that are not set aside.

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

This only happens when the host school is behind in that certain subject. If host school is already those resourceful schools, this gives them a further inequitable share.

Let's think of it in a positive way: the set-aside also sets the upper limit for the host school to not let the program become their own local program. Does it make it sound better?

Anonymous wrote:Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

I could see that if the host school were guaranteed a PROPORTIONAL share of seats. But they were talking about giving 1 school out of 5, not 20% of seats, but 33%.

Probably because they don't want a situation where a host school has no kids in the actual program creating a "town vs. gown" type of situation where the host community resents the privileged selected few. It makes sense to me.

That makes no sense. I don’t understand how they can justify things like that.

Can someone explain to me the rationale for host school "set-asides" for seats in magnet programs? I believe for example the Richard Montgomery IB program currently does this for in-bound students. But to my knowledge, Blair's SMCS program does not - do I have that right?

I was kind of gobsmacked to hear at today's BoE meeting that they want to continue this practice, which seems totally inequitable to me, in the future 6 region model. It was kind of hard to follow with numbers being thrown around quickly without a lot of discussion on it, but what I think I caught was that they were thinking of having ~30 seats per program allocated to the host school for in-boundary students, and then another ~60 seats allocated for the 4 other schools in a particular reason. So you'd have twice the odds of admittance if you live in-boundary for that school's program. That seems to go against the entire idea of what they say they want to do, which is reduce the current inequitable access to magnet programs.