Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 10:33     Subject: Program analysis webinars
I asked two questions in the NEC meeting and one was answered. One was about equity (didn't get answered) and the other was about local set-asides, which got a "we're-not-completely-sure-yet"-style answer.

As a completely burnt-out NEC parent of a child who is in the middle school magnet program, I'm not completely for OR opposed to the changes, but mostly for. The magnet is providing a great academic experience for my child, and a WAY better one than she'd have gotten at her home school, but it has hurt her and our family in other ways due to the long commute/distance.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 10:26     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


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 "miss the cut" (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 "available" 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>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.


Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

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.


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.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 10:17     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


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 "miss the cut" (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 "available" 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>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.


Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

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.


Oh I see that now thank you

Overall I see:
- 0 criteria based programs at Whitman
- 2 at BCC
- 1 at Einstein
- 2 at Northwood
- 2 at Blair

This...doesn't seem horrible to me?
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 10:06     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


Ah so they want to dig in to the existing inequity and us lowly DCC families are supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to have our kids bused across the tracks?


Every program can't be at every school.


No, but the basic minimum should be raised so all students have reasonable opportunities and can have a fighting chance to get into the school they want to.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 10:05     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


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 "miss the cut" (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 "available" 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>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.


Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?

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.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 10:01     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


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 "miss the cut" (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 "available" 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>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.


Is the Humanities program at BCC going to be criteria based?
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 09:46     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


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 "miss the cut" (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 "available" 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>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.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 09:44     Subject: Re:Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.




Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.


You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform


That's not a feedback form, that's them gathering questions to answer in their FAQ. They've never put out a feedback form as far as I know.


I posted about this on the MSMC thread. In yesterday’s webinar, MCPS encouraged attendees to use the “Ask a Question” button on their academic programs analysis website to provide feedback and questions:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis


If they wanted to collect feedback, they would title it something that reflected that and widely publicize it as a place folks can go to share feedback, through some of those dozens of emails and texts they're constantly sending out, and in other ways too.

Instead they are making it as clear as possible to everyone that they consider this a done deal that they are not open to changing, and then saying the Ask a Question form is a way to give feedback so that they can point to it when people say "why aren't you gathering community feedback on this?" Basically the smallest pretend fig leaf of collecting feedback they can possibly offer.

I mean, it's the only option we've got (besides Board testimony and emails, which folks should also use) so yes, people should use the form to give feedback they have. But that doesn't mean we should let MCPS get away with claiming that they are providing real opportunities for feedback by doing this.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 09:28     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


Ah so they want to dig in to the existing inequity and us lowly DCC families are supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to have our kids bused across the tracks?


Every program can't be at every school.


They are giving the most access to language learning AND the social justice program to the school with the lowest percentages of EML, Black and Hispanic students. Wtaf
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 09:22     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


Ah so they want to dig in to the existing inequity and us lowly DCC families are supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to have our kids bused across the tracks?


Every program can't be at every school.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 09:11     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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?


That's not how math works.

Schools don't all have the same distribution of academic credentials.


East county schools certainly have more multilingual kids so why does Whitman get languages? Make it make sense.


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.


Ah so they want to dig in to the existing inequity and us lowly DCC families are supposed to be grateful for the opportunity to have our kids bused across the tracks?
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 08:44     Subject: Re:Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.




Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.


You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform


That's not a feedback form, that's them gathering questions to answer in their FAQ. They've never put out a feedback form as far as I know.


I posted about this on the MSMC thread. In yesterday’s webinar, MCPS encouraged attendees to use the “Ask a Question” button on their academic programs analysis website to provide feedback and questions:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis


Yeah, that might work if it published directly to a page that everyone could see, but, as it is, it lets them make it a black hole for anything they don't want to answer. Same reason they go with the curated Q&A instead of an open chat on the Zoom meetings.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 08:40     Subject: Re:Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:At DCC meeting today they answered questions about lack of public feedback by saying that the proposal was prepared for the Board, and they are now getting the feedback from the public. They reassured that no current local program will be eliminated but dodged questions about whether the programs will be effectively weakened and interest will then lack due to new programs structure.




Did they actually solicit any feedback on the call (i.e. ask people what they thought)? Did they mention any opportunities for people to give feedback moving forward? Because if not, they are not doing this.


You can enter your questions and comments in the form that's been available for awhile now.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffliSw9EpDBe0IwFk-t4Vg3UcGHTrAbFbga0zdioxcZSzmZw/viewform


That's not a feedback form, that's them gathering questions to answer in their FAQ. They've never put out a feedback form as far as I know.


I posted about this on the MSMC thread. In yesterday’s webinar, MCPS encouraged attendees to use the “Ask a Question” button on their academic programs analysis website to provide feedback and questions:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 08:40     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Some questions that I know were asked and not answered at today’s noon session were why is visual and performing arts in separate schools for Einstein/Northwood but placed together for every other region? Why was Northwood chosen for the performing arts when Einstein has a well established program? Will the school board be voting? And can you speak to how drops in enrollment will impact ability to maintain local programs?


Yeah, I asked a few questions too, and none were answered, including if BOE would vote on this.


I also asked if the board already approved the plan at the NEC webinar. They also did not answer this question. They skipped around it answering questions before and after in the chat.
Anonymous
Post 10/01/2025 08:04     Subject: Program analysis webinars
Anonymous wrote:Some questions that I know were asked and not answered at today’s noon session were why is visual and performing arts in separate schools for Einstein/Northwood but placed together for every other region? Why was Northwood chosen for the performing arts when Einstein has a well established program? Will the school board be voting? And can you speak to how drops in enrollment will impact ability to maintain local programs?


Yeah, I asked a few questions too, and none were answered, including if BOE would vote on this.