Did anyone from Westland/Cabin John/N. Bethesda/Frost/Pyle/Hoover get in to MS magnets last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....

What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....

What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.

If you sort the raw scores out, you can clearly see who is - and who isn't - an 'outlier' in each particular school. Now, if no one truly is an outlier and, say, 4 kids in a school have similar scores in low-to-mid 99%, then the selection committee can tweak the results to get the result they want. But it's preposterous to say that tests used during the selection don't separate kids from each other. They do.. to a certain extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

They were put out in response to complaints to parents about possible discrimination. It was to reassure them that their kids were not necessarily special and unique and that at some schools there are dozens and dozens of similarly highly able kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were long threads about this, last year, with some information shared. They were many pages long. I'd do a google search to see if you can pull it up.

I think there was such a large cohort of gifted kids at Pyle they determined magnet wasn't necessary since they already had a comparable cohort at their home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were long threads about this, last year, with some information shared. They were many pages long. I'd do a google search to see if you can pull it up.

I think there was such a large cohort of gifted kids at Pyle they determined magnet wasn't necessary since they already had a comparable cohort at their home school.

I can't find the thread from last year but there was info released from MCPS that at least 2 kids from each MS cohort was offered a spot in the magnets. MCPS spread the wealth in terms of admittance.

[Anonymous]

My child attends one of the named MSes, and she is one of at least 4 that she knows who were admitted to an MS magnet and did not attend. Three are from a single ES. Didn't want a long commute, didn't want to start over with friends, got selected for the opposite magnet of interest, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....

What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.

There is little statistical validity to those distinctions - so say statistics AND the creators of those tests. Thus they all say you must use multiple measures.

[Anonymous]

I've heard that most of the kids come from those schools at least that's what the parents have indicated in other threads, but then again there was that data from the county last year that showed the distribution was fairly similar across the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....

What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.

About 2% of all students are selected for these programs and I'm not sure that distinguishing between 99.99 and 99.90 is all that significant for these tests,

[Anonymous]

DC's home school is one of the schools mentioned. Many of the top kids from these school rejected magnet programs and choose to stay at the home school.

It is roughly 2 kids from the same ES going to the magnet program. DC's ES has only 1 kid choose to go, and that kid is pretty smart but definitely not one of the best..

[Anonymous]

DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I’m also not sure what real info comes from that chart. Those are the kids who were seriously considered from each school, and what put them into consideration. Many kids were probably in consideration based on every one of those measures. But it still doesn’t show who was selected or why. Or am I misunderstanding?

I think the chart is meant to show that there is talent and promise all over the county. You are of course right, though, that is is showing the 99th (or maybe even something like >97th) percentiles and not the 99.9th. But it was put out by MCPS at a time when a lot of folks seem to be publicly aghast at the idea that there might be bright and underchallenged kids who would benefit from the magnet at even the most high needs schools.

Ah, that makes sense.

But none of the tests used by mcps are designed to distinguish any part of the 99th percentile from another part of the 99th percentile. Oh well. Stats you know....

What are you talking about? CogAt raw scores distinguish within the 99th percentile, so do MAPs and PARCCs. A child with 300 MAP-M in the fall is, obviously, different from the child with 240 MAP-M while both numbers fall under 99 percentile.

There is little statistical validity to those distinctions - so say statistics AND the creators of those tests. Thus they all say you must use multiple measures.

True - but Tiger parents love to delude themselves with these things, but FWIW I don't think the county even looks at the fractional portion of the score.