Anonymous
10/23/2025 15:16
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:The goal for the entire regional model is to meet the MD blueprint threshold for 45% or more HS graduate to get a certificate. How to meet that goal? Creating numerous special programs sugarcoated with attractive names and descriptions and making every HS to host multiple "special programs". Only through this way that they can attract enough students to meet their goal.
What is a certificate? An extra li e on their diploma that they took two special electives?
Anonymous
10/23/2025 15:13
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Travel is minor cosmetic measure. Accessibility means giving deserving students access to advanced programs. And from that perspective, number of magnet spots is what matters (assuming magnets maintain academic rigor). But it seems that academic rigor and program quality are not important and what is important is distance to school. But in that case why even bother with magnets.
I'll let everyone know that travel is a minor cosmetic measure that in no way impedes less-resourced kids from utilizing the magnets.
It's weird because you are arguing that one major thing that impedes accessbility is "cosmetic". And you are arguing this somehow from a high horse.
It is not a major thing. Do you know example of a less-resourced kid that was accepted to one of the magnets that didn't go because of travel? When the whole thing started, the argument was that there are deserving kids throughout the county but we only have a couple of magnet programs with limited number of spots. So instead of creating more spots in already well established programs, we will pretend that there are more spots with some completely new magnets that may crush and burn since we are not investing in teachers and schools, but hey, at least you will be walking to that new bogus magnet.
Again, if the point was to create new quality academic spots, this could have been done through existing magnets and by strengthening regular curriculum. If the point was to pretend that we are giving more opportunities by calling something a magnet that is near by, than this plan is working.
You speak with too much sense so it will fly past anyone in MCPS.
My kid is in a bogus magnet - Parkland. After the first year I realized our home school is better. I didn't even think it was worth the commute but kid made friends so we stayed there. My kid told me that there were 6th graders who didn't know multiplication (in a whole school magnet).
All these regional magnets they are proposing will basically be a bogus magnet like Argyle, Loiderman and Parkland.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 14:49
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Travel is minor cosmetic measure. Accessibility means giving deserving students access to advanced programs. And from that perspective, number of magnet spots is what matters (assuming magnets maintain academic rigor). But it seems that academic rigor and program quality are not important and what is important is distance to school. But in that case why even bother with magnets.
I'll let everyone know that travel is a minor cosmetic measure that in no way impedes less-resourced kids from utilizing the magnets.
It's weird because you are arguing that one major thing that impedes accessbility is "cosmetic". And you are arguing this somehow from a high horse.
It is not a major thing. Do you know example of a less-resourced kid that was accepted to one of the magnets that didn't go because of travel? When the whole thing started, the argument was that there are deserving kids throughout the county but we only have a couple of magnet programs with limited number of spots. So instead of creating more spots in already well established programs, we will pretend that there are more spots with some completely new magnets that may crush and burn since we are not investing in teachers and schools, but hey, at least you will be walking to that new bogus magnet.
Again, if the point was to create new quality academic spots, this could have been done through existing magnets and by strengthening regular curriculum. If the point was to pretend that we are giving more opportunities by calling something a magnet that is near by, than this plan is working.
Please go look at the thread about Einstein, or the thread about high FARMS schools needing magnets, etc. Travel is a major issue, and people complain about it incessantly. Incessantly.
The watering down of the magnets is a somewhat different issue, which yes, impact equity as well.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 14:00
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Travel is minor cosmetic measure. Accessibility means giving deserving students access to advanced programs. And from that perspective, number of magnet spots is what matters (assuming magnets maintain academic rigor). But it seems that academic rigor and program quality are not important and what is important is distance to school. But in that case why even bother with magnets.
I'll let everyone know that travel is a minor cosmetic measure that in no way impedes less-resourced kids from utilizing the magnets.
It's weird because you are arguing that one major thing that impedes accessbility is "cosmetic". And you are arguing this somehow from a high horse.
It is not a major thing. Do you know example of a less-resourced kid that was accepted to one of the magnets that didn't go because of travel? When the whole thing started, the argument was that there are deserving kids throughout the county but we only have a couple of magnet programs with limited number of spots. So instead of creating more spots in already well established programs, we will pretend that there are more spots with some completely new magnets that may crush and burn since we are not investing in teachers and schools, but hey, at least you will be walking to that new bogus magnet.
Again, if the point was to create new quality academic spots, this could have been done through existing magnets and by strengthening regular curriculum. If the point was to pretend that we are giving more opportunities by calling something a magnet that is near by, than this plan is working.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 13:33
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Travel is minor cosmetic measure. Accessibility means giving deserving students access to advanced programs. And from that perspective, number of magnet spots is what matters (assuming magnets maintain academic rigor). But it seems that academic rigor and program quality are not important and what is important is distance to school. But in that case why even bother with magnets.
I'll let everyone know that travel is a minor cosmetic measure that in no way impedes less-resourced kids from utilizing the magnets.
It's weird because you are arguing that one major thing that impedes accessbility is "cosmetic". And you are arguing this somehow from a high horse.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:59
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Travel is minor cosmetic measure. Accessibility means giving deserving students access to advanced programs. And from that perspective, number of magnet spots is what matters (assuming magnets maintain academic rigor). But it seems that academic rigor and program quality are not important and what is important is distance to school. But in that case why even bother with magnets.
lol this is a very good point.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:54
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Travel is minor cosmetic measure. Accessibility means giving deserving students access to advanced programs. And from that perspective, number of magnet spots is what matters (assuming magnets maintain academic rigor). But it seems that academic rigor and program quality are not important and what is important is distance to school. But in that case why even bother with magnets.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:33
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
reducing travel distance = improve accessibility
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:28
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
I thought that the main idea was to improve accessibility and open new magnet spots for deserving students. It was silly of me to think that this had some noble an deeper objectives that simply reducing travel inconveniences.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:19
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:13
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
This actually makes sense to me. I think we need more programs as there are so many talented students who are unable to participate. Having regions also makes sense. 6 seems like too many to me too. 3 seems like a good starting point.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 12:04
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thinking about the post arguing that MCPS is too big, and also all the posts pointing out the many issues with the proposed 6-region model.... has there been any consideration for a 3-region model instead? If not, why not?
Looking at the map, it might be reasonable to use what they've already come up with, but to make Region 1 & 2, 3 & 4, and 5 & 6 into combined regions.
Then there would be FAR fewer new programs to stand up, which should increase the chances of success: having a critical mass of prepared students, enough qualified teachers, etc. Perhaps Woodward could host the new STEM magnet for central county students, and Poolesville would continue to be an option for west county, and Blair for East.
Thoughts?
The whole point of regions is to increase the academic options available to students without massively increasing travel times. Combining defeats this...
If they were actually addressing travel times, I might agree with you, but the regional program buses are apparently only going to go to and from each local high school, so there will still be very long commutes even with 6 regions.
Given that, I think starting with 3 regions (or 3 pairs of regions that share regional program) makes a ton of sense. If demand exists, they can then expand the number of programs further (and can decide that on a program by program basis.)
Anonymous
10/23/2025 11:19
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
The goal for the entire regional model is to meet the MD blueprint threshold for 45% or more HS graduate to get a certificate. How to meet that goal? Creating numerous special programs sugarcoated with attractive names and descriptions and making every HS to host multiple "special programs". Only through this way that they can attract enough students to meet their goal.
Anonymous
10/23/2025 11:18
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Anonymous wrote:Thinking about the post arguing that MCPS is too big, and also all the posts pointing out the many issues with the proposed 6-region model.... has there been any consideration for a 3-region model instead? If not, why not?
Looking at the map, it might be reasonable to use what they've already come up with, but to make Region 1 & 2, 3 & 4, and 5 & 6 into combined regions.
Then there would be FAR fewer new programs to stand up, which should increase the chances of success: having a critical mass of prepared students, enough qualified teachers, etc. Perhaps Woodward could host the new STEM magnet for central county students, and Poolesville would continue to be an option for west county, and Blair for East.
Thoughts?
The whole point of regions is to increase the academic options available to students without massively increasing travel times. Combining defeats this...
Anonymous
10/23/2025 11:14
Subject: Why not 3 regions instead of 6?
Thinking about the post arguing that MCPS is too big, and also all the posts pointing out the many issues with the proposed 6-region model.... has there been any consideration for a 3-region model instead? If not, why not?
Looking at the map, it might be reasonable to use what they've already come up with, but to make Region 1 & 2, 3 & 4, and 5 & 6 into combined regions.
Then there would be FAR fewer new programs to stand up, which should increase the chances of success: having a critical mass of prepared students, enough qualified teachers, etc. Perhaps Woodward could host the new STEM magnet for central county students, and Poolesville would continue to be an option for west county, and Blair for East.
Thoughts?
Looking at the map, it might be reasonable to use what they've already come up with, but to make Region 1 & 2, 3 & 4, and 5 & 6 into combined regions.
Then there would be FAR fewer new programs to stand up, which should increase the chances of success: having a critical mass of prepared students, enough qualified teachers, etc. Perhaps Woodward could host the new STEM magnet for central county students, and Poolesville would continue to be an option for west county, and Blair for East.
Thoughts?