Middle school magnet results?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Highesr scores aren't necessarily an indication of those who "deserve it." Lots of parents enrich to enhance test scores. I liked the old system that included essays and teacher recs. Seemed more holistic. |
Anonymous
This (except the part about not gaining from the magnet math). Mathcounts is its own beast. Kids on the team are largely kids who have had outside prep. The math curriculum is different from competition math. While many of the high testers have also worked ahead in the curriculum outside of school, it doesn't mean they won't learn in magnet math. The TPMS math teachers nurtured kids at all experience levels. I will add that I wish people would stop equating test performance that they prep their kids for to intellectual or academic ability. It's just not true. I don't know what the right answer is for curricular enrichment, but I am so tired of the parents who have already enriched to the nth degree asserting that their kid "deserves " the spot because they performed well in areas for which they have had additional instruction. Honestly, I wish MCPS would just expand the number of seats. There are so many bright kids who would benefit. |
Anonymous
Dear lord, no. I would have to cut off my ears to stop listening to their drivel. |
Anonymous
Quite. |
Anonymous
| Agree they should expand the number of magnet seats. I think most people would agree with this. |
Anonymous
This does not appear to be the case. We are aware of kids that are articulating from CES program into one of the lowest rated MS in the county with no cohort possible. MCPS seems to be gamifying the GT programs in the county by creating a large pool with no objective criteria. Everyone is confused and seeking alternatives instead. |
Anonymous
It is this nurturing for academic competitions such as Mathcounts, science bowls, science fairs, computer science competitions that the students receive at TPMS that is more valuable than anything else. Most local schools can’t provide such nurturing to high achievers who couldn’t win the lottery. |
Anonymous
The only moving outliers bit was about elementary Centers for Enriched Studies. They didn't have nearly the middle school slots at the magnets to do this there in the same way, and it wasn't a complete solution at that point anyway. They just haven't made GT programming enough of a priority to have anywhere close to enough for all the kids that would benefit. As far as the criteria go, they are pretty objective, just unclear in the exact weighting of ESOL/IEP/504/FARMS elements to be in the pool, terribly incomplete (no real measurement of underlying ability), and probably too loose as a result (trying to catch anyone who *might* have that natural ability but not the supports -- teaching exposure due to cohort availability or family ability to supplement, etc.). While this can help capture those kids, the likely larger proportion of kids with such ability-related need at the highest end of the range are not afforded a proportionately high likelihood of being selected due to the unweighted nature of the lottery selection, itself. |
Anonymous
What a sloppy job. They lowered the criteria and who knows how they conduct lottery. This is the craziest thing if 99th percentile did not get placed but 88the percentile is in the regional program |
Anonymous
I don’t understand your point. Do you have an alternative “objective” criteria? |
Anonymous
Really? It asked eleven-year-olds what awards they won and required a lot of adults to do a lot of work on behalf of each application. Do you really think a bright kid from a high-Farms family has had as many recommendations and extracurriculars as a Takoma Park princeling? What you all should lobby for is equal access for all gifted kids who need the harder classes. But then the programs would lose the exclusitivity... You know, what you"re complaining that they don't have now? Congratulations! You have the worst of all worlds now |
Anonymous
I agree with you that essays and potentially biased teacher recs are not the way to go. And I am in favor of equal access. Sure, some people will complain about the loss of exclusivity, but I agree with PP that most can get behind a move to enlarge the magnet program. |
Anonymous
It’s not “if” 99th percentile did not get placed but a 88th percentile did get placed, no if about it. It’s a fact. My DD has a 99 percentile in map m and map r and didn’t get placed, her friend with 85 percentile did get placed. This is MCPS plan all along. Give minority a greater chance and to effectively kick out Asians. But what this does is dilute the enrichment of the magnet pgm until its eventually is replaced with no pgm at all! It’s also not fair that a highly gifted student can’t get into the magnet! |
Anonymous
They developed the reduced criteria last year when they had little choice due to remote learning/the pandemic. Since they didn't have the CogAT or a good proxy that might identify high *capability* for learning more directly, they had to proxy with the existing measures for high *achievement*. It's the highly *able* that the programming is most aimed at. The achievement metrics, themselves, were somewhat suspect/ not entirely reliable in the pandemic/remote learning environment. To try not to leave out a highly able learner from the pool when using them as a proxy, they had to keep it pretty broad. That's where the 85th percentile came in. They were looking for the top one to five percent in ability, but had to consider, instead, the top fifteen percent in achievement/demonstrated knowledge (MAP) since that gets influenced by other factors (peer cohort at the local school allowing teachers to cover more, outside tutoring, etc.). It's far more puzzling why they are continuing with that this year instead of conducting the CogAT or at least modifying the percentiles (one might presume that MAP scores are a bit more reliable this year). In the BOE debrief over the summer/early fall, they were asked to show the demographic effect of the altered criteria used. There were shifts towards underserved groups, and this seemed to sit well with the board, though that may have been relief that there weren't shifts the other way despite the modifications -- the learning loss had, in general, occurred among those groups the most. For those that might be conspiracy minded, continuing to use last year's algorithm, or something close to it, could be seen as driven by a demographic agenda that saw an opportunistic moment, by a long- standing bias against differential GT programming that seeks to justify its removal by watering things down (and then being able to point at resulting failures), or by both. That isn't necessarily the case -- there are lots of ongoing pandemic-related challenges in play -- but if it is, it's serving MCPS's political class (BOE down to associate superintendent). |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A lot more kids could benefit from the criteria-based programs (Centers/Middle Math & Humanities Magnets/HS Application Programs) than they have seats. Maybe not everyone at the 85th percentile+, and maybe not all flying through, but easily 2-3 times the number of spaces.
The tragedy is the lack of uniformly great local school enrichments. What they had pursued before for CES, with large high-ability local cohorts staying put ([b]only moving outliers with no manageable peer group to the Centers[/b]), could have worked if they really put muscle into it to make sure the local programs were implemented equitably, with all identified students having roughly equivalent enrichment experiences. They hadn't gotten there yet due to relatively high local school autonomy in curricular matters (principals are too powerful) and the undercutting of the power of the central AEI office (no senior executive), despite that office being the one responsible for ensuring the state mandate to address GT need. If MCPS isn't going to provide this, a more stringent state requirement, like an IEP, is needed. It would be much more burdensome to implement individually, so MCPS would, by economics, be likely to address it more holistically, expanding magnet programming and/or ensuring good local implementation.[/quote] This does not appear to be the case. We are aware of kids that are articulating from CES program into one of the lowest rated MS in the county with no cohort possible. MCPS seems to be gamifying the GT programs in the county by creating a large pool with no objective criteria. Everyone is confused and seeking alternatives instead.[/quote] The only moving outliers bit was about elementary Centers for Enriched Studies. They didn't have nearly the middle school slots at the magnets to do this there in the same way, and it wasn't a complete solution at that point anyway. They just haven't made GT programming enough of a priority to have anywhere close to enough for all the kids that would benefit. As far as the criteria go, they are pretty objective, just unclear in the exact weighting of ESOL/IEP/504/FARMS elements to be in the pool, terribly incomplete (no real measurement of underlying ability), and probably too loose as a result (trying to catch anyone who *might* have that natural ability but not the supports -- teaching exposure due to cohort availability or family ability to supplement, etc.). While this can help capture those kids, the likely larger proportion of kids with such ability-related need at the highest end of the range are not afforded a proportionately high likelihood of being selected due to the unweighted nature of the lottery selection, itself. [/quote] What a sloppy job. They lowered the criteria and who knows how they conduct lottery. This is the craziest thing if 99th percentile did not get placed but 88the percentile is in the regional program[/quote] It’s not “if” 99th percentile did not get placed but a 88th percentile did get placed, no if about it. It’s a fact. My DD has a 99 percentile in map m and map r and didn’t get placed, her friend with 85 percentile did get placed. This is MCPS plan all along. Give minority a greater chance and to effectively kick out Asians. But what this does is dilute the enrichment of the magnet pgm until its eventually is replaced with no pgm at all! It’s also not fair that a highly gifted student can’t get into the magnet![/quote] It's not fair that there are not enough seats for all the gifted kids. Advocate for that priority and the higher taxes needed for associated funding. It's also not fair that a highly able learner from a high FARMS school likely doesn't have the peer group to let the teacher get through base material and enrich/cover more content, likely doesn't have the parent time/access to outside tutoring to effect the same, and likely scores lower on a measure highly reliant on exposure to material like MAP as a result. To keep the programs more concentrated, advocate for higher reliance on measures of ability vs. achievement and for guardrails against their being prone to gaming, along with a move back away from a lottery. A high-ability 99th percentile MAPer would still get in. |