Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would you expect there not to be below-level kids in a whole school interest-based magnet like Parkland? It's just supposed to be for kids who are interested in space. Do you think only above level kids are interested in space?

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

Program only available in only 1 or 2 of 6 regions = reduce accessibility.

But nearly all “programs” are going to be available in all regions. So what are you talking about? aviation?

Not pp, I am confused with all these magnet regional programs. Are one better than the other one on the same magnet program depends on the school or region one is assigned to? Is humanities & stem the most popular?

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

Program only available in only 1 or 2 of 6 regions = reduce accessibility.

But nearly all “programs” are going to be available in all regions. So what are you talking about? aviation?

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

Program only available in only 1 or 2 of 6 regions = reduce accessibility.

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?

But they are decreasing it for DCC students. Three is more logical.

The whole point of regions is to increase the academic options available to students without massively increasing travel times. Combining defeats this...

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

Program only available in only 1 or 2 of 6 regions = reduce accessibility.

Anonymous wrote:Increasing the number of programs without any quality control on those programs is not increasing access.

Scaling up slowly makes sense. Start with three regional pairs and then add additional programs to regions as needed based on program success and student demand.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.

No, they just pretended it was about reducing travel time to try to drum up support, then did a bait and switch and are saying you can only catch the magnet bus at your local high school. I guess it reduces your travel time if you live next door to a high school but otherwise you are out of luck.

Anonymous wrote:Three regions defeats the whole idea, which is reducing the travel distance to the magnets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would you expect there not to be below-level kids in a whole school interest-based magnet like Parkland? It's just supposed to be for kids who are interested in space. Do you think only above level kids are interested in space?

Anonymous wrote:

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.