Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

This is your guess based on your limited personal experience in your friendship circle. Central office did run a survey last spring to ask you select the top program themes that you'll be interested in. They did presented the ranking, but if I recall correctly, it's not breaking down into different regions nor parents/students/educators. The only purpose of the survey is to showcase that hey, people are interested. And then they run full-speed ahead with the agenda in their mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had surveyed families to get a sense of interest at the start of this process?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

I agree that stats will be different, but interest? I think you'd be surprised.

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

Taylor also said they would use the regional model to help adjust capacity in overcrowded schools. Nevermind that those two concepts are in direct conflict with one another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

Exactly. The question is about criteria. I asked Jennie Franklin last winter during one in-person info session: as you are assigning similar program size, how do you set up the qualification criteria? Student stats and number of students who are interested in STEM will be significantly higher than another region (yes, I'm talking about scenarios like Region 4 vs. Region 5, but I don't want to offend anyone). So do you apply different criteria? Or do you use lottery for the former region? Jennie didn't give me an answer. She hasn't thought about this back then. Applying different criteria is what's CES and MS magnet is doing, and you'll end us with very different student body no matter you then run a lottery or not. This student body will be significantly stronger in academics and more suitable for adapting into the current SMCS curriculum where the future STEM program will most likely be successful.

Anonymous wrote:This is not for certain. I’m a member of the “design team”(with quotes because we aren’t actually designing anything). Someone asked about this a couple of meetings ago and debated it with Jeannie. Jeannie def thinks that a lottery among qualified students is better, but said it is still TBD. The design team
Pushed back. People who care should write and call about this.

I agree that a lottery among qualified students is better. If the qualifications need to be tweaked based on the content of the program and the needed readiness for the program, then adjust the qualifications.

Anonymous wrote:Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.

This is like when they say they are providing transportation. It isn’t actually the full true story. They can’t have unlimited seats for these programs.

The question is about criteria. I actually have no problem if they have as many seats as they need to accommodate all applicants who are as qualified and prepared as the current program students. The issue is when they have so much room or maybe not so much interest that they lower the criteria. Which is how you end up with underperforming programs, like some of the regional IB programs.

This will be the demise of mcps and bankrupt it.

This is not for certain. I’m a member of the “design team”(with quotes because we aren’t actually designing anything). Someone asked about this a couple of meetings ago and debated it with Jeannie. Jeannie def thinks that a lottery among qualified students is better, but said it is still TBD. The design team
Pushed back. People who care should write and call about this.

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie said something at some point about how they had looked at magnet programs in other large districts similar to MCPS and that many/most of them do lotteries for placement rather than ranking candidates.

Anyone know where she might be referring to?

"School districts similar to MCPS" meaning bad districts? Most of those probably do use lotteries.

Good districts? Do not

TJ
IMSA
Stuyvesant
Frazer


And of course the top performing privates like GDS and Exeter and Proof School don't use lotteries.

Well that’s sad. Saw so many clueless parents supporting the changes and buying that MCPS wanted to open up new slots. My kids graduated, you guys have no idea what the top students in the county will miss out on now.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not seeing the issue. The only issue I see is the schools with limited AP and advanced classes are going to be a problem if they don't provide those classes and families will have to leave MCPS - go private, move, etc.

Oh dear, you are far behind.

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie said something at some point about how they had looked at magnet programs in other large districts similar to MCPS and that many/most of them do lotteries for placement rather than ranking candidates.

Anyone know where she might be referring to?

Who knows what goes on in the mind of Jeannie Franklin? The highest achieving STEM magnets in the country don't use lotteries.

OMG. I can't believe Taylor is going to get this passed.

Jeannie said something at some point about how they had looked at magnet programs in other large districts similar to MCPS and that many/most of them do lotteries for placement rather than ranking candidates.

Anyone know where she might be referring to?

Taylor specifically said they would not turn away students and that they would not be operating with a scarcity model. Plus, he said there are no caps on seats.

So it sounded like admissions was pretty much going to be an open door and no one would be rejected.