How do you think this year's high school magnet selection process ?

[Anonymous]

Waitlists have opened! Anyone else get news today?

[Anonymous]

Dd offered spot at Wheaton biomed

[Anonymous]

DD offered spot in springbrook IB program! Woohoo!

[Anonymous]

Offered IB spring brook and Wheaton tech .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

What facts?

[Anonymous]

Wonder when test in program waitlists open up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

That's so true! Some schools are so vastly better and confer a clear advantage to students at less affluent schools. I'm glad the county acknowledges this now to help identify the brightest and not just th most privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wonder when test in program waitlists open up?

I was told it will be around mid March when next list of notifications go out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

So PP, do you really believe that only rich white or Asian kids can be smart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

So PP, do you really believe that only rich white or Asian kids can be smart?

I believe in the advantage one gets by living in the boundary for one of the affluent schools. Cohort nonsense erodes this advantage, but seriously if parents cared about education, they'd live in bounds for a good school.

[Anonymous]

These attacks are really unfair. Opposing the new admissions process doesn't mean you are racist. There are many different ways to level the playing field. There are nuances in the way MCPS has done it and they don't line up with what's being done in Miami or proposed in NYC or other "best practices."

This is a good debate to have. The interesting part of it is that many proposals seem to be designed to reduce the percentage of Asian students and increase the number of black or Hispanic. So they will choose whatever criteria works to do that.

In NYC they are proposing to get rid of the standardized test. They are NOT giving an advantage to poor students or ESOL students like they do in MCPS. Why? Nearly all of the Asians getting into the magnets in NYC are poor. This isn't a case of rich kids prepping and using their advantages. These are poor kids (FARMS) and ESOL.

In MCPS most Asians getting in area not poor or ESOL, but many Hispanic and black students in certain parts of the county are poor and or ESOL. So they introduce peer cohort, the SES groupings, and IN ADDITION give an extra bump to individual FARMS and ESOL kids.

I am not saying which of these is the "right" way to do things but that there is no universal way of changing the system to make it "fair" so people should stop trying to shut down the discussion by accusing certain posters of racial bias when they object to certain criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So? I thought MCPS stated that other schools were as equally good, but even if they aren't, that doesn't mean MCPS should be favoring one side over the other for a county wide program.

It's not a county-wide program. There are the middle-school magnet programs at Clemente/MLK, and there are the middle-school magnet programs at Takoma Park/Eastern.

Also, MCPS isn't favoring one side over the other. MCPS is saying that the outliers at each school get admitted to the middle-school magnet programs.

It's county wide for the southern part of the county. Clemente is for the northern side of the county. People who live in the W clusters are zoned for TP/Eastern magnet, not Clemente, which serves the northern portions of the county.

When MCPS uses peer cohort criteria, it does favor one side of the other because one side has waaay more higher performers than the other side, but they are effective giving the other side a bump up because of where they live.

And to PP's question of "how is it penalizing w clusters".. it does so because a student who happens to live in that cluster who scores higher than another student in another cluster but doesn't get in because of "peer cohort" basically is penalized because of where that student lives. If you pluck that student out of a W cluster, and put them in a school out east, then that student would probably get in. And no... families shouldn't have to move just so their kids don't get penalized for where they live. That would be gaming the system.

I think this generalization isn't truthful. Both sides of the county have similar numbers of high-performers. The difference is one side has higher ranked schools and parents who invest in prep. The cohort criteria levels this playing field so equally high-performing students in less affluent areas get the same opportunities.

This is not supported by facts. If you look at high performers by school there are many more at places like Hoover, Cabin John, Pyle. These are Cogat scores, which you cannot really prep for. I don't disagree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think the cohort system is wrong and it ends up benefitting those middle class, white families that happen to live in areas with mediocre to bad schools because they care less about education than the size of their house (one version) or they value diversity (other version)

I beg to differ since the facts which are plain as day are clear cut and support their argument. Further, the "good" schools confer an advantage fortunate enough to live within their boundaries. The cohort criteria simply levels the playing field.

This is EXACTLY what MCPS wanted to achieve by creating percentiles within SES bands. The average person is now totally confused about the fact that a child can score "99%" in a low SES band, but really have a score in the 80s when compared to the entire district. Now we have all of the "high performers" that we could possibly want!

So PP, do you really believe that only rich white or Asian kids can be smart?

I believe in the advantage one gets by living in the boundary for one of the affluent schools. Cohort nonsense erodes this advantage, but seriously if parents cared about education, they'd live in bounds for a good school.

Not everyone can afford to live in Chevy Chase, but everyone is entitled to a first-rate public education.