Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

I hope you say this out loud to someone in real life and they visibly roll their eyes at you. I mean, wth even is this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a critical mass of highly able students in the same classroom, a good program, and good teachers for this to be successful. Montgomery county benefited from the national awards won by Blair, Poolesville, and RM students, by increased tax revenue for instance. It is simply not possible to achieve the same level of success with regional programs. There won't be enough interested and capable students to justify the same level of classes at the same number of classes. There won't be enough teachers capable of teaching these classes at the same level they are taught today. For all practical purposes, this is the end of a very successful program. Sad.

Totally agree. It’s just impossible to duplicate those highly successful programs across all six regions. Eventually, the so-called magnet programs in each region will become just regular programs with a few advanced classes.

But I guess no one cares.

People don't care because the few magnets slots are placed in the far eastern part of the county or upper Northwest part of the county. For the vast majority of us, our kids either didn't qualify because we haven't been prepping them since the age of 5 AND/OR we live far away and travel time isn't worth it. What is the plan for middle school magnets? IMO, that is the level where we most need reform.

Middle school magnets are on the chopping block next year. I haven't heard about the gifted and talented programs at the elementary school levels, but it makes sense those will be cancelled after the middle school programs are unwound.

If that means that GT kids will have access to accelerated and enriched programming that is meaningful at local schools that is great. My children have never had lottery luck and have been stuck with sun-par programming at local schools.

You’re delusion if you think this means any improvement for your kids.

Well worth my kids not being served at all
By CES/magnets right now, it won’t be any worse for them.

You need to think about beyond

DP. The status quo is not serving the vast majority of CO-identified students with needs for acceleration, especially in secondary.

The reforms won’t help them. And if the students cannot benefit from the AP programs they already have - what makes you think a regional magnet will be better

Why won't the reforms help them? My kid isn't in H$ yet but my understanding is that there is currently little to no acceleration or enrichment in 9th or 10th except math, whereas the programs will cover all of high school.

Ask yourself why they cannot just offer acceleration in 9th and 10th instead of canceling the highly selective magnets? Hint - because they are not actually interested in tracking kids. They want to stop tracking. the regional magnets will be lottery based and will not offer the acceleration you envision.

There is acceleration in math as you can pick algebra in 6-7th or at least currently. The problem is there is no math outside statistics at some schools outside calc bc and no science apps or other things. They push in at some schools but few kids actually graduate with ib degrees so they need to look at that and dump it. If you want MV, you have to go to MC or go without. And, if you go without you may not have enough math classes to graduate as they don’t allow independent study or other virtual outside MV.

they don't offer MVC in some schools because there is low demand for it. At RM, there are two full MVC classes, I believe, and not all are IB students.

If you dilute the top performers across six regions, you also dilute the demand, which means some of the regionals won't offer those courses.

Again, MCPS cannot create equal opportunities across all of the regions.

Many students leave their home schools as they don't have the offerings. If you have the offerings, more kids would stay at their home schools. There would be a demand at more schools if it were offered.

Yes, they can create equal opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

I have a 99.99% kid (MAP test at 99% level for 12th grade since 4th grade; CoGAT full score), and a 99% kid (MAP test on-level 99% or 1-2 level above; 3-4 questions wrong in CoGAT in each category). They are totally different kids. The first one barely learns anything from school but just self-studied through online materials they are able to find, but they find their peers at TPMS and Blair and are extremely happy to be able to finally social with their-kinds. They sought all kinds of national or international competition opportunities and worked as a team. They were able to deliver research analysis within a few weeks that typically takes a PhD student several months to complete. My second one is in general happy with school although still complaining about boredom from time to time. If my second one can be admitted to Blair, I think they would be able to survive, but would struggle from time to time and need to work hard.

Now you are talking about applying a curriculum that designed for the 99.9% kid, and a 99% kid would find very challenging, to the 90%-level kids. It will bring more harm than good. Only people went through this could understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

The top 10 percentile (ie, A students) by MAP M and R seems a good gauge. Having a hard cutoff, and an administration that will stand by it regardless of complaints) would prevent a watered down curriculum. From observation, those under 90 percentile really are B-type students and that’s where the wheels start coming off.

Anonymous wrote:Across the 3 schools, there are roughly 1,000-1200 kids being served by the magnets. Someone else mentioned there are 55k HS students so it’s serving 2.18% of the population (1200/55k).

MCPS is short on funding. It sucks if your kid is one of the 2%. However the money can be spent serving a broader spectrum of students. MCPS is paying for DE classes at MC. The opportunities for the academically gifted students are there. There’s even bus service from the local HS to the MC campuses.

I agree it’s not a great solution but it does reallocate funding to where the majority of students can access it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need a critical mass of highly able students in the same classroom, a good program, and good teachers for this to be successful. Montgomery county benefited from the national awards won by Blair, Poolesville, and RM students, by increased tax revenue for instance. It is simply not possible to achieve the same level of success with regional programs. There won't be enough interested and capable students to justify the same level of classes at the same number of classes. There won't be enough teachers capable of teaching these classes at the same level they are taught today. For all practical purposes, this is the end of a very successful program. Sad.

Totally agree. It’s just impossible to duplicate those highly successful programs across all six regions. Eventually, the so-called magnet programs in each region will become just regular programs with a few advanced classes.

But I guess no one cares.

People don't care because the few magnets slots are placed in the far eastern part of the county or upper Northwest part of the county. For the vast majority of us, our kids either didn't qualify because we haven't been prepping them since the age of 5 AND/OR we live far away and travel time isn't worth it. What is the plan for middle school magnets? IMO, that is the level where we most need reform.

Middle school magnets are on the chopping block next year. I haven't heard about the gifted and talented programs at the elementary school levels, but it makes sense those will be cancelled after the middle school programs are unwound.

If that means that GT kids will have access to accelerated and enriched programming that is meaningful at local schools that is great. My children have never had lottery luck and have been stuck with sun-par programming at local schools.

You’re delusion if you think this means any improvement for your kids.

Well worth my kids not being served at all
By CES/magnets right now, it won’t be any worse for them.

You need to think about beyond

DP. The status quo is not serving the vast majority of CO-identified students with needs for acceleration, especially in secondary.

The reforms won’t help them. And if the students cannot benefit from the AP programs they already have - what makes you think a regional magnet will be better

Why won't the reforms help them? My kid isn't in H$ yet but my understanding is that there is currently little to no acceleration or enrichment in 9th or 10th except math, whereas the programs will cover all of high school.

Ask yourself why they cannot just offer acceleration in 9th and 10th instead of canceling the highly selective magnets? Hint - because they are not actually interested in tracking kids. They want to stop tracking. the regional magnets will be lottery based and will not offer the acceleration you envision.

There is acceleration in math as you can pick algebra in 6-7th or at least currently. The problem is there is no math outside statistics at some schools outside calc bc and no science apps or other things. They push in at some schools but few kids actually graduate with ib degrees so they need to look at that and dump it. If you want MV, you have to go to MC or go without. And, if you go without you may not have enough math classes to graduate as they don’t allow independent study or other virtual outside MV.

they don't offer MVC in some schools because there is low demand for it. At RM, there are two full MVC classes, I believe, and not all are IB students.

If you dilute the top performers across six regions, you also dilute the demand, which means some of the regionals won't offer those courses.

Again, MCPS cannot create equal opportunities across all of the regions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went through 30 pages of comments and I think the problem is not really the replacement of some successful programs but rather a matter of trust. People have minimal (if any) trust in MCPS and this feeling is based on a history of terrible decisions.
Hard to convince parents that your plan is actually good when you lack to provide significant info like how do you find the teachers, how is the admission going to happen, how do you measure the success of the new approach and what's your backup plan if it is not working.
A safer approach would have been to sunset the current programs gradually if the new approach delivers results.

Trust is everything and as someone mentioned before, these decision makers have no accountability. This might be another failure as many others with no consequences whatsoever.

Yes, but they have already tried that with the four regional IBs. What is the "success" of those programs? As you stated, how is MCPS gauging whether those regional are successful?

Remember on July 24th BOE meeting, the study team attributed the failure of regional IBs to the existence of RMIB, so far more students chose to travel far instead of staying in local that makes the local IB program lacking enough cohort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Because most of these programs aren’t for “smart” kids. Half or more MCPS’s students are smarter than the average American. These programs are for students who are already academically advanced, have demonstrated academic excellence, and are highly motivated to learn at a faster pace, dig deeper into material, master lessons on their own, complete special projects, and enter competitions. Not everyone wants that.

People complain about longer commutes to magnets, leaving friends behind at one’s home school, having trouble balancing extracurricular activities with long commutes and extra homework, but the existing programs require students and their parents to identify their top priority. The proposed changes are designed to make people feel like they can have it all.

For some of the current programs, group projects are a huge part of the experience. Projects can be bigger and much more detailed when there are 2-4 students working together. There’s frequently an issue where a student doesn’t do their fair share. Imagine amplifying that issue by admitting twice as many kids, many of whom wouldn’t have been interested in a program if it required a substantially bigger time commitment.

People keep posting that every kid who is qualified should have access to these programs. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not sure we’re all envisioning the same definition of “qualified.” Is every student who could manage to pass these classes qualified? Students who maintain at least a C average in their program’s core classes? Students who are at least in the 90th percentile on subject related standardized testing? The top 10% of students in each individual region? 12% of all students countywide (twice the number currently being served)? What does qualified mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the justifications people are giving for why the system has to stay the way it is just sound like gatekeeping to me. People seem to want to benefit from a program and then slam the door behind them and keep access limited. “My kid was smart and had the right combination of skills and genius and prepping to do well, but yours might not!” “If more non-wealthy students have access to what my kids had access to, it will be tragic, the program will go downhill!” I’m all for broadening access. True access for students who qualify for a program. Not more gatekeeping behind lotteries, which is what MCPS has done in recent years and which isn’t any better. Why can’t each high school have the same advanced math classes? Because anonymous posters on dcum say it’s hard to get people with the right background to teach these subjects? It’s public school. People want a fair system, and having your course options limited because of where you live within the school district, or because the county does not create enough seats in a program for the number of students who qualify for the program, does not seem like a fair system.

I’m not gatekeeping. I’m in favor of expanding the number of seats in programs and even introducing a third SMCS program, a third Humanities program, and a second Global Ecology program so more students live within a reasonable commute. Play adjustments to the IB program.

What I’m not interested in is achieving equity by eliminating any meaningful cohorting and pretending that MCPS is flush with highly qualified, motivated teachers who are excited to take on new curricula.

They are going to roughly double the number of seats in SMCS programs (3 times the number of programs but each one will be smaller.). How is that eliminating any meaningful cohorting?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Across the 3 schools, there are roughly 1,000-1200 kids being served by the magnets. Someone else mentioned there are 55k HS students so it’s serving 2.18% of the population (1200/55k).

MCPS is short on funding. It sucks if your kid is one of the 2%. However the money can be spent serving a broader spectrum of students. MCPS is paying for DE classes at MC. The opportunities for the academically gifted students are there. There’s even bus service from the local HS to the MC campuses.

I agree it’s not a great solution but it does reallocate funding to where the majority of students can access it.

How much exactly does MCPS spend on the 2.18% population of students? And how much is it expecting to spend on 6X more students? We need to use "cost per student" as the measure, shouldn't we?

Do people realize that a significant portion of magnet costs are covered by magnet foundation (donated from alumni) and nearby universities? Magnet foundation is not willing to pay bills if expanding to regional models because the majority of the successful alumni do not originally come from Region #1 or #6, and asking UMD to spend 6X for MCPS? You can daydream about that.

Maybe it's for the best if the Magnet Foundation gets replaced by a Montgomery County Gifted Foundation and parents funds experiences for students at various schools and outside of school. Why tie them to Blair?

For inspo, there are many privately funded robotics teams in Montgomery County, and not all of them are school-linked.

If someone wants to create a new foundation and fund it they can. The Blair magnet foundation is run by and supports the Blair magnet and is strong because of the efforts of DECADES of alumni. I am uninvolved but I cannot imagine a scenario that an established foundation like that would shift its focus to a completely different mission. That’s a ridiculous suggestion.

Why would the existing supporters of the Magnet want to Foundation support a new regional magnet that took the old Magnet's name but eliminated its guiding philosophy?

Huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Across the 3 schools, there are roughly 1,000-1200 kids being served by the magnets. Someone else mentioned there are 55k HS students so it’s serving 2.18% of the population (1200/55k).

MCPS is short on funding. It sucks if your kid is one of the 2%. However the money can be spent serving a broader spectrum of students. MCPS is paying for DE classes at MC. The opportunities for the academically gifted students are there. There’s even bus service from the local HS to the MC campuses.

I agree it’s not a great solution but it does reallocate funding to where the majority of students can access it.

How much exactly does MCPS spend on the 2.18% population of students? And how much is it expecting to spend on 6X more students? We need to use "cost per student" as the measure, shouldn't we?

Do people realize that a significant portion of magnet costs are covered by magnet foundation (donated from alumni) and nearby universities? Magnet foundation is not willing to pay bills if expanding to regional models because the majority of the successful alumni do not originally come from Region #1 or #6, and asking UMD to spend 6X for MCPS? You can daydream about that.

Maybe it's for the best if the Magnet Foundation gets replaced by a Montgomery County Gifted Foundation and parents funds experiences for students at various schools and outside of school. Why tie them to Blair?

For inspo, there are many privately funded robotics teams in Montgomery County, and not all of them are school-linked.

If someone wants to create a new foundation and fund it they can. The Blair magnet foundation is run by and supports the Blair magnet and is strong because of the efforts of DECADES of alumni. I am uninvolved but I cannot imagine a scenario that an established foundation like that would shift its focus to a completely different mission. That’s a ridiculous suggestion.

Why would the existing supporters of the Magnet want to Foundation support a new regional magnet that took the old Magnet's name but eliminated its guiding philosophy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Across the 3 schools, there are roughly 1,000-1200 kids being served by the magnets. Someone else mentioned there are 55k HS students so it’s serving 2.18% of the population (1200/55k).

MCPS is short on funding. It sucks if your kid is one of the 2%. However the money can be spent serving a broader spectrum of students. MCPS is paying for DE classes at MC. The opportunities for the academically gifted students are there. There’s even bus service from the local HS to the MC campuses.

I agree it’s not a great solution but it does reallocate funding to where the majority of students can access it.

How much exactly does MCPS spend on the 2.18% population of students? And how much is it expecting to spend on 6X more students? We need to use "cost per student" as the measure, shouldn't we?

Do people realize that a significant portion of magnet costs are covered by magnet foundation (donated from alumni) and nearby universities? Magnet foundation is not willing to pay bills if expanding to regional models because the majority of the successful alumni do not originally come from Region #1 or #6, and asking UMD to spend 6X for MCPS? You can daydream about that.

Maybe it's for the best if the Magnet Foundation gets replaced by a Montgomery County Gifted Foundation and parents funds experiences for students at various schools and outside of school. Why tie them to Blair?

For inspo, there are many privately funded robotics teams in Montgomery County, and not all of them are school-linked.

If someone wants to create a new foundation and fund it they can. The Blair magnet foundation is run by and supports the Blair magnet and is strong because of the efforts of DECADES of alumni. I am uninvolved but I cannot imagine a scenario that an established foundation like that would shift its focus to a completely different mission. That’s a ridiculous suggestion.