Middle school magnet results?

[Anonymous]

I think one of the challenges here is that a certain subset of parents has complained about every. single. change. to the magnet admissions process. That includes changes that were evidence-based and objectively correct, like getting rid of teacher recommendations for the younger kids and relying less on outside achievements.

Because those folks have been complaining and filing lawsuits over the changes to date, policymakers are less inclined to pay attention to the new round of concerns.

This is a problem because the "new" changes are objectively bad, lack an evidence base, and are weirdly designed to both appear to seek equity while not actually being equitable.

For example, relying on grades and MAP instead of returing to CoGAT now that kids are back in school is an objectively bad choice because it means you are rewarding the kids who have been accelerated outside of school.

Setting the "cut off" at 85th percentile is also a terrible choice. The magnets are not designed for the 85th percentile kids, and I don't think the teachers are going to change some of the more demanding deliverables, so we're going to see a whole lot more kids leave the programs.

It's just all around a badly managed situation. The changes that MCPS made a few years ago were GOOD, but the MCPS leadership didn't even give them a chance to play out before wading in and mucking everything up again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 (only moving outliers with no manageable peer group to the Centers), 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.

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.

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.

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

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).

Exactly, school was in person this sept 2021 so why couldn’t they administer the cogat? Because they liked the demographics of the student class that was picked during the virtual school without the cogat. They want to continue that and under the guise of the pandemic decided not to administer the cogat this year. Without the cogat in play, its easier for mcps to manipulate the new incoming class to the demographics they would like. Witha a greater minority population in the magnets they can the state to their constituents andnhigher ups that they are closing the achievement gap without actually teaching or improving minorities lives. Win win for all, except the highly gifted are once again put on the back burner by mcps.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps they should modify the criteria and make it so that 80 percent of the spots are reserved for kids with 95 percent plus and 20 percent of the spots are reserved for 85-95.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they should modify the criteria and make it so that 80 percent of the spots are reserved for kids with 95 percent plus and 20 percent of the spots are reserved for 85-95.

Thant sounds good! If we can think of these ideas, why can’t a team of professionals from mcps who did this on a daily basis think of something like this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they should modify the criteria and make it so that 80 percent of the spots are reserved for kids with 95 percent plus and 20 percent of the spots are reserved for 85-95.

As a magnet parent who has been in favor of equitable access all along, I agree with this or some version of this. I think we should all get behind bringing back the CogAT and using it as a criterion. There are some fit issues in DC's class and it doesn't appear the curriculum has been watered down as some suggest. There's plenty of challenging work for those at the highest ends of MAP testing, but some families I've talked to are regretting their choice to enroll. I'm sure some amount of this second guessing happens every year, and the school year is not over yet, but I think we should seek a better marriage of equity and fit, and bringing back the CogAT would help us in that direction.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]

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.[/quote]

I couldn't agree with this more. The people the lottery hurts the most are the children from disadvantaged areas that have high potential but no peer group and therefore need more support, motivation, teachers who recognize their strengths, and a curriculum that stimulates them. Right now they are saying they'll take basically any kid as long as they work a little bit and get a really mediocre MAP and grades. That helps no one.

Even the old system which was not great but involved cogat, teacher recommendations and an application is better because it at least captures motivation in those groups. Universal screening that is ranked and uses cogat works a lot better to identify the kids that need the program. Why not get rid of it altogether if they are using this lottery approach? What need is it meeting if only a small percentage of those in the pool get in and the pool is like 20% of the county?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]

So MCPS places high FARMS school kids in the regional program because they do not have a local cohort. But MCPS sends a CES kid with 99th percentile to that same high FARMS school with no local cohort? How in the world is this fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the challenges here is that a certain subset of parents has complained about every. single. change. to the magnet admissions process. That includes changes that were evidence-based and objectively correct, like getting rid of teacher recommendations for the younger kids and relying less on outside achievements.

Because those folks have been complaining and filing lawsuits over the changes to date, policymakers are less inclined to pay attention to the new round of concerns.

This is a problem because the "new" changes are objectively bad, lack an evidence base, and are weirdly designed to both appear to seek equity while not actually being equitable.

For example, relying on grades and MAP instead of returing to CoGAT now that kids are back in school is an objectively bad choice because it means you are rewarding the kids who have been accelerated outside of school.

Setting the "cut off" at 85th percentile is also a terrible choice. The magnets are not designed for the 85th percentile kids, and I don't think the teachers are going to change some of the more demanding deliverables, so we're going to see a whole lot more kids leave the programs.

It's just all around a badly managed situation. The changes that MCPS made a few years ago were GOOD, but the MCPS leadership didn't even give them a chance to play out before wading in and mucking everything up again.

You're right and it's unfortunate that these parents who complain about everything made things worse for everyone.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]

So MCPS places high FARMS school kids in the regional program because they do not have a local cohort. But MCPS sends a CES kid with 99th percentile to that same high FARMS school with no local cohort? How in the world is this fair?
[/quote]

No, it's a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they should modify the criteria and make it so that 80 percent of the spots are reserved for kids with 95 percent plus and 20 percent of the spots are reserved for 85-95.

Thant sounds good! If we can think of these ideas, why can’t a team of professionals from mcps who did this on a daily basis think of something like this!

We don't even need to get this fancy. I have a proposal that would solve 99% of the problems AND would be cost-effective AND wouldn't require extensive working groups and study.

MCPS could just.....do what they said they were going to do four years ago.

They could roll out AIM, HIGH, and Advanced English to every MS in the county and reserve those classes for kids who meet the 85th percentile cut-off. Cohort those kids, and let them learn with one another and with trained teachers in schools that have enough "highly capable" students to form a cohort.

Reserve the regional magnets for absolute outliers + kids who wouldn't have a cohort in their home schools.

Done and dusted, right? That's what MCPS promised when this year's 9th graders were entering 6th grade. They promised AIM and HIGH for all kids who were qualified for the magnet, and they promised cohorts. Then, they left implementation up to individual principals, so it didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]

So MCPS places high FARMS school kids in the regional program because they do not have a local cohort. But MCPS sends a CES kid with 99th percentile to that same high FARMS school with no local cohort? How in the world is this fair?
[/quote]

Leaving out any of the highly capable learners is unfair, either the high-FARMS kid or the CES kid, each with the ability but only one with the available partial-criteria backward-lookong data to have greater confidence in the assessment. The thing is to expand the offering and make it equally accessible to all. The PP who noted that AIM/HIGH/etc. were promised at all MSs points this out. Principal discretion has to be limited in this matter, just as with IEPs; otherwise, there's an equitability/accessibility problem

[Anonymous]

The current system of relying on MAP Scores and Grades is less equitable than relying SOLELY on a CogAT test. (Preferably not the 30-question screener that focuses only on analogies, but the full test). Other districts (Broward FL) have found "diamonds in the rough" that way. From there, however, you don't focus only on 99%ile kids from privileged backgrounds, so there is still room for controversy. (Because even the best intentioned parents focus advocacy so keenly on the results for their own child, or children just like them.)

Both MAP scores and grades evaluate how kids are doing in a system that may be stacked against them in various ways. Even the most privileged gifted kid can have negative grade results for any number of reasons, some directly related to their giftedness.

Having more seats would help. But if the pro-magnet crowd takes the stance that whatever happens in a home school is never going to be good enough, the effort to get more seats gets derailed quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current system of relying on MAP Scores and Grades is less equitable than relying SOLELY on a CogAT test. (Preferably not the 30-question screener that focuses only on analogies, but the full test). Other districts (Broward FL) have found "diamonds in the rough" that way. From there, however, you don't focus only on 99%ile kids from privileged backgrounds, so there is still room for controversy. (Because even the best intentioned parents focus advocacy so keenly on the results for their own child, or children just like them.)

Both MAP scores and grades evaluate how kids are doing in a system that may be stacked against them in various ways. Even the most privileged gifted kid can have negative grade results for any number of reasons, some directly related to their giftedness.

Having more seats would help. But if the pro-magnet crowd takes the stance that whatever happens in a home school is never going to be good enough, the effort to get more seats gets derailed quickly.

I'm the PP who is frustrated that MCPS gave up on the system they pledged to implement four years ago, and this is exactly right. MAP scores reward out-of-school learning, as they are a test of exposure, not aptitude. Grades are subjective, and gifted kids can end up with a single B (or more) for a variety of reasons that should not disqualify them from the magnets.

However, a purely cogat-based approach has a substantial downside, which I'll call the NYC Trap, in which the magnets become the purview of the highly prepped rather than the gifted. That's what NYC saw with it's "gifted" elementary schools. Kids were prepping for a test administered at 3 or 4, creating a whole industry of test prep for tiny kids.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, my bright kid is one of the best students in her class but not an outlier. She doesn’t need a magnet for gifted kids. She’ll be happy with AIM and HIGH and I wish they were a decent English choice for her. Really pointless to put all the kids like that into a lottery. She was like “So I was in a lottery, but I lost?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current system of relying on MAP Scores and Grades is less equitable than relying SOLELY on a CogAT test. (Preferably not the 30-question screener that focuses only on analogies, but the full test). Other districts (Broward FL) have found "diamonds in the rough" that way. From there, however, you don't focus only on 99%ile kids from privileged backgrounds, so there is still room for controversy. (Because even the best intentioned parents focus advocacy so keenly on the results for their own child, or children just like them.)

Both MAP scores and grades evaluate how kids are doing in a system that may be stacked against them in various ways. Even the most privileged gifted kid can have negative grade results for any number of reasons, some directly related to their giftedness.

Having more seats would help. But if the pro-magnet crowd takes the stance that whatever happens in a home school is never going to be good enough, the effort to get more seats gets derailed quickly.

I'm the PP who is frustrated that MCPS gave up on the system they pledged to implement four years ago, and this is exactly right. MAP scores reward out-of-school learning, as they are a test of exposure, not aptitude. Grades are subjective, and gifted kids can end up with a single B (or more) for a variety of reasons that should not disqualify them from the magnets.

However, a purely cogat-based approach has a substantial downside, which I'll call the NYC Trap, in which the magnets become the purview of the highly prepped rather than the gifted. That's what NYC saw with it's "gifted" elementary schools. Kids were prepping for a test administered at 3 or 4, creating a whole industry of test prep for tiny kids.

You can't prep for the cogat. Why do you keep brining up prepping? Most kids that prepped did not get in anywhere. The kids that prepped and got in probably would have gotten in anyway. Why are you so obsessed with assigning blame to a certain group of people? Why do people on this board think it's okay to bash Asian Americans but not other minorities and pretend that you are these gracious people who really want to help poor minorities. I have news for you. In NYC Asian Americans are the poor minorities. The kids going to magnets who are Asian are almost all FARMS.