Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Yes, MCPS was explicit in saying a lottery would be used for criteria-based HS magnets.
The pool for eligible students will be based on "criteria" yet TBD. Then MCPS will supposedly use a lottery to select students from that pool. But I suspect MCPS massages the outcome to get whatever it is that they are looking for in their student cohorts.

Speculating, an example: previously, eligibility for (RM)IB included 8th grade, currently enrolled or completed 1st year of a foreign language. If criteria is as broad as that, there will be some very large student pools. Although this doesn't bother me from a universal screening perspective, what does bother me is the criteria for MAP scores ~85% is not standardized across MCPS schools, but rather locally normed. An 85% at a high-performing school is different than an 85% at schools where students are not proficient. Yet they are all lumped together in the student pool. IMHO, this is where the system falls apart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://form.jotform.com/252966011384155

Call on the super and the BOE to separate the program study from the boundary study

No! They are related and should be done together. The big choice program study came out 10 or more years now. Time to make changes in a system that isn't working.

Did you read the recommendations in that study? MCPS is following exactly none of them.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/info/choice/choicestudyreport-version2-20160307.pdf

Anonymous wrote:https://form.jotform.com/252966011384155

Call on the super and the BOE to separate the program study from the boundary study

No! They are related and should be done together. The big choice program study came out 10 or more years now. Time to make changes in a system that isn't working.

Anonymous wrote:Anything notable from the sessions today?

Only Whitman will have a social justice program and only Poolesville will have global ecology. But don’t worry! Other regions will have other programs in the “leadership” theme, like early childhood development or Navy JROTC.

Never mind that JROTC excludes any student who isn’t a citizen. And that the defense department is run by a sadistic drunk. Let’s make that a magnet program! Go MCPS! Brilliant idea!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

They’ve been saying that in at least two zoom sessions last week. Not sure if this question was brought up and answered again today. So far it’s not documented, and they’ve never shared the recording so there’s a slim chance for change if it was strongly against. But hey, we’ve been unanimously strongly against the speedy roll-in of the regional model, and did we change anything, other than speeding them up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

Were they explicit that they would be using a lottery for criteria-based HS magnets, even existing programs? TIA

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has turned into a total circus with these regions.

Arts magnets? Seriously? Do they not understand the modern economy


https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/22/mcps-programming-changes/

In an age of AI, teaching creativity is one of the smartest moves. I wish more people saw that. "The modern economy" is a grim place where magically we will never have enough engineers or computer programmers who have never read a book. It's not a race, high school, you realize? It's a time to learn about what interests you and narrow your focus. In my experience at one of the top public magnets in the country (#20 or #25 last I checked), my friends who were math and stem-focussed in high school ended up doing things like getting PhDs in Comp Lit from Yale, and my friends who went to Julliard opened small businesses. Learning how to think critically is more important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Criteria programs will have specific metrics and their students who meet them will be placed in a lottery for access".
Admitting that even with many regions and many regional programs they won't have enough seats to meet all the kids who qualify.

They said, and repeated later, that "interest-based" is lottery, not criteria.

You don't need a lottery for criteria-based programs, because they can opaquely claim that the selection process isn't a lottery. They aren't lotteries today, but they are subjective admissions judgments.

You are incorrect. They absolutely stated that for criteria based programs, they will set minimum criteria and anyone who meets those gets placed in a lottery. Like the middle school magnets. This is a huge change from the way they handle high school criteria programs currently.

They are keeping lotteries and keeping set asides. So you still have different chances based on your zip code.

This. What I heard: interest-based = lottery with no criteria. Criteria-based = lottery with minimal criteria.

Which means HS selection process goes the way of MS magnets and ES conversion from HGC to CES.
Which means HS magnets are circling the drain.
Which means in a few years, Central Office will complain about magnet performance and then... wait for it... blame the curriculum for students not being proficient... then gut the magnet curriculum.

Basis? Stay tuned to what is emerging for current MS Humanities magnets (MLK Jr and Eastern MS). AEI is about to pull the rug from under current 6th/7th graders and gut next year's curriculum. No honoring existing students here.

If they pull the rug out from the current 6th/7th grade students I'm going to be pissed. How do you have these students putting in the work and then short change them. Particularly after you already didn't do enrichment correct this year for the ES level.

https://form.jotform.com/252966011384155

Call on the super and the BOE to separate the program study from the boundary study

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the big news is:

1) They confirmed there will only be transportation from high schools, and you have to get to your local high school yourself
And 2) The criteria-based programs will not pick the top candidates, it'll be a lottery among those meeting the minimum criteria (similar to current CES and MS magnets approach)

Do I have that right?

This is equity.

No, this is idiocy. A complete destruction of the only two things that MCPS can be proud of - Blair and RM magnets. And gullible people think that this will somehow improve accessibility. It will not. The only decent magnet program after this move will be STEM at Blair and even this is under big question mark and assumes that they will manage to keep teachers. All other magnets will start as a joke, masquerading as magnets with fancy curriculums but with inadequate resources, teachers and students that were selected by lottery and not able to keep up with programs that are supposed to be above regular.

In the meantime, Whitman, the most hated school among those that celebrate this monstrosity is laughing because they miraculously managed to end up in the region with the only decent STEM magnet and will now share this precious resource with only a couple of schools.

It is frustrating that with so much community objections, this regional model is still going full speed

It is literally SO WEIRD that there is full consensus from all stakeholders that they should slow down and try to get it right, and they are just plowing ahead. When do we ever have consensus?!

During the BOE session it seemed like they were saying they weren't just plowing ahead, but they were actually speeding it up

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda Mag article on background:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/22/mcps-programming-changes/

The academic pathways charts don't include state requirements like Technology or Health nor Phys Ed.

Yes, they do. And World Language too

Any changes from last week?

Anonymous wrote:They don't care if they get feedback from Black and Latino families.

If schools have PTSA, the representative on the PTSA/PTA can try to collect feedback from families at their school to report back to mcps. Lotta time and effort.

Or actually I guess the last one doesn't happen until 6pm tonight.

Anything notable from the sessions today?