Middle school magnet lottery cutoffs finally revealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

I don’t think an achievement test should be used at all to judge giftedness. They should use an intelligence test. They do not measure the same thing.

I agree with you, but this is another red herring. MCPS could easily use the cogat but they are choosing not to administer it because “reasons” so we don’t have that data. This is the only data we have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

I don’t think an achievement test should be used at all to judge giftedness. They should use an intelligence test. They do not measure the same thing.

I agree with you, but this is another red herring. MCPS could easily use the cogat but they are choosing not to administer it because “reasons” so we don’t have that data. This is the only data we have.

Unofortunately, people can and do prep for these, which will distort outcomes. For example, the CogAT is a fairly respected intelligence test but you can greatly improve your score through prep and many kids who can afford those classes or a private tutor did exactly that. In the end, your just throwing up road blocks and whatever measures we use need to involve local norms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

I completely agree with this. They have watered down CES and middle-school magnets so much at this point that they should just get rid of them and offer local cohosted programming, creating a regional programs for schools that don’t have enough kids to create a full classroom.

Well, I had children go through both the TPMS magnet and a CES before and during the lottery and it seems the same too me. Sure, I initially thought it would be watered down too but everything I've seen indicates otherwise. In fact, I'd offer that far more kids are able to do the work than had been previously thought which to me indicates the problem is these programs are too exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

I don’t think an achievement test should be used at all to judge giftedness. They should use an intelligence test. They do not measure the same thing.

I agree with you, but this is another red herring. MCPS could easily use the cogat but they are choosing not to administer it because “reasons” so we don’t have that data. This is the only data we have.

Unofortunately, people can and do prep for these, which will distort outcomes. For example, the CogAT is a fairly respected intelligence test but you can greatly improve your score through prep and many kids who can afford those classes or a private tutor did exactly that. In the end, your just throwing up road blocks and whatever measures we use need to involve local norms.

Agree, and I'm not sure a one shot high-stakes test is really the best answer either. I'd one use existing measures like grades and maps in addition to doubling the size of these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

I don’t think an achievement test should be used at all to judge giftedness. They should use an intelligence test. They do not measure the same thing.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lotteries don't serve equity either. They're just too random.

+1
I don't understand the point of including kids from wealthier, high performing schools at this point.
Why not just reimagine the magnets for kids who are in higher poverty schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotteries don't serve equity either. They're just too random.

+1
I don't understand the point of including kids from wealthier, high performing schools at this point.
Why not just reimagine the magnets for kids who are in higher poverty schools?

I don’t disagree but the optics of that would be…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

Do you teach the same math to a 95% student and a 60% student in the same class?

I don't know. I can probably guess that the curriculum will not be as rigorous for all as it was 5 years ago, because the cohort will be less accelerated on the whole. I assume the lessons will be the same for the whole class, meaning the answer to your question is yes. But again, the point is that after the initial beginning of school year ramp-up (there always is one) MCPS predicts that the 95%ile kid and 65%ile kid are equally capable, and that within this new environment, should achieve similarly. I think that is a fair assessment.

To be fair, my kid is a 95-99% kid. Hardly has to try, at least not until recently. They're in a competitive middle school magnet and while we fight about minor struggles (example: hey study for your retake, which they ace after spending 20 minutes on studying) I know many other families in the magnet with equally high scoring kids who work SO SO HARD and get Bs and Cs. So test scores are not the end all be all that people think they are. They measure how well someone takes tests, and sometimes correlate to other things, but they don't really predict success on the whole in these programs, which is why they are supposed to be used as cut offs and not sole indicators of admission-worthiness.

It is unrealistic, even if two kids have the same innate ability, to assume that both should receive the same instruction and can perform at the same level. Presumably, schools teach information and skills. If one child has not acquired those skills/information, they cannot simply move on as if they have, even if they are smart. (Smart is not the same as educated.)

Why doesn't MCPS set up a different program for kids in this situation? MCPS is either: 1) setting up kids to fail (like many kids admitted to elite colleges with lower academic preparation); OR 2) watering down the magnet curriculum so much as to render it useless for higher performing kids. Both of these are negative outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is equity sh*t right?

Absolutely, but even worse, it makes students with the highest scores, who DO NOT win the lottery, feel really terrible about themselves. This was my daughter's situation a couple of years ago.
I am against the lottery, even if the cut-off was similar at all schools, just because it's not a fair system. You can't have a large range of scores that are entered into a hat, then pick a lower scorer over a higher scorer. You could possibly do this if the hat was all 99% and above, maaaybe? But it's really frustrating when a 90th percentile gets in, and the 99th percentile doesn't. There is a big difference in critical thinking between those two scores. DD has always had scores within the 99th percentile. Kids like her are why magnets were created. And yet she has to go to her home school, where I had to fight to get her into an advanced math class, because we're in a cluster that doesn't like accelerating students, even though she did well on her placement test and found the class really easy.

In general, we are happy with MCPS, but this particular part of it really maddening.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you with a rising sixth grader who has consistently scored in the 99th percentile, went to CES, and didn't get selected from the lottery. And yes, it sucks, but it's definitely not any less fair than our kids getting in because they happen to have been born into families with the resources to support them.

And the fact that she has someone in her life who 1) knows how to and 2) is willing to fight to get her into advanced math is a pretty good indicator that she will be OK in her home school. Not all students have that.

My 5th grader who scored in 280s on their MAPs which is 30 points over the 99th percentile wasn't selected, but several kids from the CES with much lower stats were.

I'm not into turning this into a hunger games competition or making it a windfall for the prep industry either.

They just need to increase the number of seats so kids who score in the top 2% who are interested in these programs can participate.

Yes, that's going to happen, because test scores aren't a gold standard indicator of which kids most need those seats. They definitely need to increase the number of seats, but not just for the top 2%. They need to have enough seats for all kids who can do the work. That's a huge lift, but it should be the goal.

I don't understand why the "pie" can't be bigger either. Despite an increase in school age population they have not added MS magnet seats downcountry. I assume part of the problem is space. Maybe it is optics too.

I think the reality is that these exclusive programs have run their course. The original purpose was to stop white flight in east county. Then the Asians took them over. They should get rid of the programs and focus gifted resources at the individual school level. After the pilot in 2017ish data was released that showed most middle schools had enough kids to have a gifted cohort. For the small percentage of kids who can not served at their home school, they can bus those kids to other schools where a cohort does exist. We already have a significant amount of bussing in the DCC. What is a little bit more?

I completely agree with this. They have watered down CES and middle-school magnets so much at this point that they should just get rid of them and offer local cohosted programming, creating a regional programs for schools that don’t have enough kids to create a full classroom.

Well, I had children go through both the TPMS magnet and a CES before and during the lottery and it seems the same too me. Sure, I initially thought it would be watered down too but everything I've seen indicates otherwise. In fact, I'd offer that far more kids are able to do the work than had been previously thought which to me indicates the problem is these programs are too exclusive.

Nothing has been watered down. Why would any of these kids go back to their home schools if the programs had been made less rigorous? Those that leave sometimes do so because prepping for the CoGAT only got them ready for the test and not for the rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

Do you teach the same math to a 95% student and a 60% student in the same class?

I don't know. I can probably guess that the curriculum will not be as rigorous for all as it was 5 years ago, because the cohort will be less accelerated on the whole. I assume the lessons will be the same for the whole class, meaning the answer to your question is yes. But again, the point is that after the initial beginning of school year ramp-up (there always is one) MCPS predicts that the 95%ile kid and 65%ile kid are equally capable, and that within this new environment, should achieve similarly. I think that is a fair assessment.

To be fair, my kid is a 95-99% kid. Hardly has to try, at least not until recently. They're in a competitive middle school magnet and while we fight about minor struggles (example: hey study for your retake, which they ace after spending 20 minutes on studying) I know many other families in the magnet with equally high scoring kids who work SO SO HARD and get Bs and Cs. So test scores are not the end all be all that people think they are. They measure how well someone takes tests, and sometimes correlate to other things, but they don't really predict success on the whole in these programs, which is why they are supposed to be used as cut offs and not sole indicators of admission-worthiness.

It is unrealistic, even if two kids have the same innate ability, to assume that both should receive the same instruction and can perform at the same level. Presumably, schools teach information and skills. If one child has not acquired those skills/information, they cannot simply move on as if they have, even if they are smart. (Smart is not the same as educated.)

Why doesn't MCPS set up a different program for kids in this situation? MCPS is either: 1) setting up kids to fail (like many kids admitted to elite colleges with lower academic preparation); OR 2) watering down the magnet curriculum so much as to render it useless for higher performing kids. Both of these are negative outcomes.

Achieving the right demographic mix is the number one goal for MCPS.

Setting up kids to fail or watering down the program are secondary concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys. Let me say this to you another way.

The students from the highest FARMS schools needed a MAP score of 213 in 5th grade to get into the lottery pool. Let me put this in perspective for you. My recently graduated 5th grader had 217 as a 6 year old 1st grader. We do not supplement and he clearly did not have enough math background or knowledge to enter into a gifted math middle school program at that time! That score is nowhere close to the gifted range for a 5th grader no matter what their SES or circumstances. At this point, they might as well enter all students into the lottery because these thresholds are absolutely ridiculous.

Apologies, but I'm just not willing to take your anecdotal experiences as data. If you're argument is that students from the highest FARMS schools who achieve those scores are not able to succeed in the magnet program, then you're going to need something beyond what you claim your first grader scored on their MAP test one time.

What? I did not give you an anecdote. I gave you actual, literal data! Scores are data: statistics and facts. Anecdotes are funny stories.

The MAP test 1st graders take so different from the one 5th graders take. The scores are not comparable.

That is such a red herring. You can directly compare the kids’ 5th grade scores then. Same test. One kid gets a 213, other gets a 275. I cannot understand why anyone keeps justifying that the student with the 213 has demonstrated ability/potential/giftedness with that score to gain entry into a special program that has fewer than 500 seats for 10,000 rising 6th graders. We don’t have perfect tools, but the tools we have show data. Is there any score from a high farms school that is so low that you wouldn’t find a way to justify their inclusion in the lottery? Where would you suggest the bar be set?

I don’t think an achievement test should be used at all to judge giftedness. They should use an intelligence test. They do not measure the same thing.

I agree with you, but this is another red herring. MCPS could easily use the cogat but they are choosing not to administer it because “reasons” so we don’t have that data. This is the only data we have.

Unofortunately, people can and do prep for these, which will distort outcomes. For example, the CogAT is a fairly respected intelligence test but you can greatly improve your score through prep and many kids who can afford those classes or a private tutor did exactly that. In the end, your just throwing up road blocks and whatever measures we use need to involve local norms.

Exactly! There is no one test that can't be gamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. It's saying kids who attend high farms schools and score at least 70%ile on the test are in-pool.

It's not the same as scoring 99%ile, but at a lot of high farms schools the barriers to learning and achievement are greater, so what MCPS is saying is that a kid who scores 70%ile at a high farms schools, at age 8, demonstrates the same potential academically as a kid who scores a 95%ile at a W feeder. Which having been at both, I do think sounds fair.

If you hate this I can see that. But it's equitable. Equitable measures being introduced may mean that certain people's odds change. I don't take issues with this, but I do think a blind lottery post-cutoff is a mistake. It is meaningful to have teachers weigh in on things, and the outcomes for equity can be increased without resorting to straight up lottery. In the end though, what MCPS needs is increased access to enrichment for way more children, and perhaps they should consider re-adding a selective process for these more selective cohorts of highly capable kids (and yes, my kid was admitted to two of those in the past, so I can speak to the quality - they were/are excellent).

Do you teach the same math to a 95% student and a 60% student in the same class?

I don't know. I can probably guess that the curriculum will not be as rigorous for all as it was 5 years ago, because the cohort will be less accelerated on the whole. I assume the lessons will be the same for the whole class, meaning the answer to your question is yes. But again, the point is that after the initial beginning of school year ramp-up (there always is one) MCPS predicts that the 95%ile kid and 65%ile kid are equally capable, and that within this new environment, should achieve similarly. I think that is a fair assessment.

To be fair, my kid is a 95-99% kid. Hardly has to try, at least not until recently. They're in a competitive middle school magnet and while we fight about minor struggles (example: hey study for your retake, which they ace after spending 20 minutes on studying) I know many other families in the magnet with equally high scoring kids who work SO SO HARD and get Bs and Cs. So test scores are not the end all be all that people think they are. They measure how well someone takes tests, and sometimes correlate to other things, but they don't really predict success on the whole in these programs, which is why they are supposed to be used as cut offs and not sole indicators of admission-worthiness.

It is unrealistic, even if two kids have the same innate ability, to assume that both should receive the same instruction and can perform at the same level. Presumably, schools teach information and skills. If one child has not acquired those skills/information, they cannot simply move on as if they have, even if they are smart. (Smart is not the same as educated.)

Why doesn't MCPS set up a different program for kids in this situation? MCPS is either: 1) setting up kids to fail (like many kids admitted to elite colleges with lower academic preparation); OR 2) watering down the magnet curriculum so much as to render it useless for higher performing kids. Both of these are negative outcomes.

Achieving the right demographic mix is the number one goal for MCPS.

Setting up kids to fail or watering down the program are secondary concerns.

I get that some frustrated parents like to make these claims but there's no real evidence to support it. Sure, MCPS wants all kids to have a shot at these programs and for all children to rise to their potential, but the way some make this sound is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotteries don't serve equity either. They're just too random.

+1
I don't understand the point of including kids from wealthier, high performing schools at this point.
Why not just reimagine the magnets for kids who are in higher poverty schools?

I don’t disagree but the optics of that would be…

These magnets should include ALL students regardless of their socioeconomic status.

[Anonymous]

Jeez, middle school magnets are not big gold stars to fight over. My child went to a CES and really liked it, and now goes to a middle school magnet and really DOESN’T like it and is looking forward to going back to our in-bounds high school. Children can be served well — or not — at lots of different schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotteries don't serve equity either. They're just too random.

+1
I don't understand the point of including kids from wealthier, high performing schools at this point.
Why not just reimagine the magnets for kids who are in higher poverty schools?

It's for show. Imho The kids at the highest performing schools have a cohort demonstrably stronger than the magnet pools. So they are disproportionately more likely to stay at home school and another name is selected from the lottery pool.