Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Watkins Mill IB can't be a good as RM IB (unless you make RM worse) because the students there are less capable.

Oh, do tell! What makes Watkins Mill students "less capable" in your mind. This should be fascinating.

Not OP, but it's not less capable as in less than, it's less capable in that RM is the top 1% of the county v Watkins Mill takes top 5-10% it's obviously not the same

Think top 1% in wealth, they are billionaires, v top 5-10% are millionaires. There is a difference

My kid graduated from RMIB. There definitely kids at home schools that are as smart as the RMIB kids. BUT the RMIB is a particular program that requires particular interests and motivation. It's a ton of work. So you need a kid that is really smart, but ALSO basically loves being a grind, AND also loves a lot of reading/writing and philosophizing about reading/writing ("theory of the mind" stuff) AND doesn't mind a lot of bureacracy mandated by apparently someone in Switzerland. Can they fill several schools with those kids? I don't think so. It's a rare bird. I don't really know why they are pushing so many of these schools, and I doubt the demand or success rates will be there. I don't think my kid would have left our home school for a program that was basically watered-down because the kids weren't that into it.

Anonymous wrote:So what do we think the criteria will be? It looks like they are planning on 60 non-local students per grade for the SMCS, IB, and humanities programs. Let's assume another 20 local students for each, so that would be 80 students per grade for each program, or 480 countywide. Out of like 12,000 kids per grade that's like top 4% if you think about each of them individually, but between the overlap of the kids qualifying/interested and the fact that some won't attend, you're probably talking about these programs serving approximately the top 15% of kids or so.

Honestly given that they use 85th percentile for ES and MS magnet lotteries now, I would not be surprised if they just pick that, at least for IB and humanities. Big question would be if it's locally normed like in the lower grades, or purely top 15% of the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Watkins Mill IB can't be a good as RM IB (unless you make RM worse) because the students there are less capable.

Oh, do tell! What makes Watkins Mill students "less capable" in your mind. This should be fascinating.

Not OP, but it's not less capable as in less than, it's less capable in that RM is the top 1% of the county v Watkins Mill takes top 5-10% it's obviously not the same

Think top 1% in wealth, they are billionaires, v top 5-10% are millionaires. There is a difference

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher in a lottery based program, there are definitely problems. Quite a few kids just want to change high schools for various reasons. Most are successful, but kids who are frequently skipping classes getting in fights and failing math courses in middle school will just continue to do the same in high school. There should be minimum standards or else they just going to tie up spots for other students. They will likely just get kicked out of these magnet programs and go back to their home high school anyways. It doesn’t really help them, other students, or the programs to have no minimum standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Watkins Mill IB can't be a good as RM IB (unless you make RM worse) because the students there are less capable.

Oh, do tell! What makes Watkins Mill students "less capable" in your mind. This should be fascinating.

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher in a lottery based program, there are definitely problems. Quite a few kids just want to change high schools for various reasons. Most are successful, but kids who are frequently skipping classes getting in fights and failing math courses in middle school will just continue to do the same in high school. There should be minimum standards or else they just going to tie up spots for other students. They will likely just get kicked out of these magnet programs and go back to their home high school anyways. It doesn’t really help them, other students, or the programs to have no minimum standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But they didn’t say these programs would be the ONLY way for a child to access high level courses. Why can’t we have good quality regular high schools in every building?

I agree with you totally! Why can't every HS provide high level courses? Why do you have to apply and get accepted into a STEM/humanity program in order to access high level courses? If you apply and you have strong stats and strong interests, and lottery kicks you out?

I think this is more nuanced than folks, including Taylor, would like to believe. YES, there should be high level courses offered in every building. But the devil is in the details. What are "high level courses?" and are they still high level if every kid in the school takes them?

That's the question Taylor has run smack into, and why we can't get a clear answer.

To take an example most folks will understand, "high level" math in every building probably means offering math up to the level that a typically high achieving kid could do taking one math class per year. In MCPS, that means offering up to MultiVariable in every school, because kids are being allowed to take Algebra in 6th across the county. Not often, but often enough that the option should be available. Maybe it's only one class per school, and maybe it's even hybrid/online, but every kid should have access.

But what about the real outliers? The kids who are taking Pre-Calc in middle school? The absolute bleeding edge of the bell curve? Well, that's why we should still have criteria-based magnets, because kids like that need to be gathered together.

Anonymous wrote:


Watkins Mill IB can't be a good as RM IB (unless you make RM worse) because the students there are less capable.

Anonymous wrote:The criteria-based programs aren't the point. If academic enrichment were the goal, they'd be adding APs and more languages at every school and making sure the IBs at Kennedy and Watkins Mill and Springbrook were as good as RM.

The goal is to have more programs where kids can get industry recognized credentials. The Blueprint mandates it. The state wants 45% of students graduating with a credential by 2031. https://www.gwdb.maryland.gov/policy/gwdb2024blueprintgoalpolicyoverview.pdf

Sure, MCPS is expanding programs like STEM and Humanities, but they aren't going to put effort in to review all the applications that come in. The lottery idea will be cheaper and easier.

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.

Hah. No cap on admissions means out-of-control transportation costs. They probably have a cap on the number of bus routes they're willing to have per region and they won't enroll a single student more than can fit on those buses.

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.

Yes! He often speaks about how this plan operates from a place of “abundance” versus scarcity. I can almost state it verbatim

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s amazing to me that they built out this enormous, complicated, expensive plan without asking families if anyone wanted it. They think they know but they have no idea. I have a kid in a program. If that particular kid were working within what our proposed region will be, kid would not be interested in doing the equivalent program and would not apply. According to the stats they are using, they’d assume my kid would apply for/likely accept a regional program spot. But since they didn’t ask, they don’t know their assumptions are wrong, at least for our family.

Tell this to the BOE and ask them to slow down the process and gather more data first.

I asked exactly this in an info session "what makes you believe QO students will choose to attend Watkins Mill IB when RMIB is no longer an option? Especially if Watkins Mill is not any closer to them?"

MCPS response? "We believe they will."

This whole analysis is based on vibes.