Middle school magnet results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The NYC magnets at the ES level being discussed here are overwhelmingly white, actually. Literally no one mentioned the HS magnets that are majority working class and Asian American. Except you because you missed the part of the post that specifically talks about ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You *can* prep for CogAT or intelligence tests, but not as effectively as for exposure-biased tests like MAP. They should (and did) have a broad, multi-factored set of criteria and guardrail algorithms to balance against this. They didn't last year and don't this year. It wasn't perfect -- any system has flaws -- but it would be better.

You're injecting the implication that the PP is anti-Asian instead of anti-test-prep when related to accessing a public service. Quite inappropriate to paint them that way.

[Anonymous]

What perplexes me the most about how MCPS related to CES and MS magnets is that the whole thing is forced rationing for no explicable reason. It does not cost substantially more to create more of these programs, but they seem so rooted to this idea that they need to enforce unnecessary rationing that it blinds them to the problems they are creating and the ramifications. You cannot have a high performing school district without high performing students. I guess MCPS mistakenly believes that high performing students are all getting supplemented outside of school anyway so they don’t need to support them in school? It’s mind boggling and what is happening now is that students are entering HS less prepared, which makes sense. They are literally reaping what they are sowing.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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. [/quote]

So no objective criteria is used. There is no transparency in the lottery process and I would say who ever is doing the lottery can and possibly will pick and drop the name again if they did not like the kids name. Given the low level of trust in the current leadership, What do you do then?

[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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

[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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

There are long lasting implications to what MCPS is doing to these kids. These future leaders are going to grow up, thinking that hardwork and merit does not matter. I am more worried about that than GT programs admission. On the other side, kids who are benefitting from non objective process such as lottery aka will believe in luck more than determination and hardwork as they see that hard work and higher scores did not matter after all to get into GT programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

You might get a better response if your question was more clearly worded. Could someone help with deciphering this post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

There are long lasting implications to what MCPS is doing to these kids. These future leaders are going to grow up, thinking that hardwork and merit does not matter. I am more worried about that than GT programs admission. On the other side, kids who are benefitting from non objective process such as lottery aka will believe in luck more than determination and hardwork as they see that hard work and higher scores did not matter after all to get into GT programs.

I dunno, I don’t think I’m with you on this one. My 99 map kid didn’t work hard for that score. It’s more luck that his brain works in a way that scores well on these types of tests. GT programs were never designed for the hardest working students. Giftedness has nothing to do with determination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

There are long lasting implications to what MCPS is doing to these kids. These future leaders are going to grow up, thinking that hardwork and merit does not matter. I am more worried about that than GT programs admission. On the other side, kids who are benefitting from non objective process such as lottery aka will believe in luck more than determination and hardwork as they see that hard work and higher scores did not matter after all to get into GT programs.

I dunno, I don’t think I’m with you on this one. My 99 map kid didn’t work hard for that score. It’s more luck that his brain works in a way that scores well on these types of tests. GT programs were never designed for the hardest working students. Giftedness has nothing to do with determination.

Perhaps your case is different from many of us. This is because many parents look at consistency of higher achievements and growth rate over multiple years not just one test score as you seems to indicate. So if you want to attribute luck in liew of hard work and determination of kids who are driven to achieve academic success, then we can respectfully agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree with you and the PP who wished they hadn't given up on improving the system. Also, many people did prep for the CogAT . Both my kids went through the manget and there are prep centers and tutors for the CogAT and most of those admitted went through some form of it according to my childrens' classmates.

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.

You *can* prep for CogAT or intelligence tests, but not as effectively as for exposure-biased tests like MAP. They should (and did) have a broad, multi-factored set of criteria and guardrail algorithms to balance against this. They didn't last year and don't this year. It wasn't perfect -- any system has flaws -- but it would be better.

You're injecting the implication that the PP is anti-Asian instead of anti-test-prep when related to accessing a public service. Quite inappropriate to paint them that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

There are long lasting implications to what MCPS is doing to these kids. These future leaders are going to grow up, thinking that hardwork and merit does not matter. I am more worried about that than GT programs admission. On the other side, kids who are benefitting from non objective process such as lottery aka will believe in luck more than determination and hardwork as they see that hard work and higher scores did not matter after all to get into GT programs.

I dunno, I don’t think I’m with you on this one. My 99 map kid didn’t work hard for that score. It’s more luck that his brain works in a way that scores well on these types of tests. GT programs were never designed for the hardest working students. Giftedness has nothing to do with determination.

Is that MAP-R or MAP-M? Give it up, you don't have a 99 MAP kid as you say. I don't think you even have a kid in the MCPS system. Just an internet troll with no logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

There are long lasting implications to what MCPS is doing to these kids. These future leaders are going to grow up, thinking that hardwork and merit does not matter. I am more worried about that than GT programs admission. On the other side, kids who are benefitting from non objective process such as lottery aka will believe in luck more than determination and hardwork as they see that hard work and higher scores did not matter after all to get into GT programs.

I dunno, I don’t think I’m with you on this one. My 99 map kid didn’t work hard for that score. It’s more luck that his brain works in a way that scores well on these types of tests. GT programs were never designed for the hardest working students. Giftedness has nothing to do with determination.

Perhaps your case is different from many of us. This is because many parents look at consistency of higher achievements and growth rate over multiple years not just one test score as you seems to indicate. So if you want to attribute luck in liew of hard work and determination of kids who are driven to achieve academic success, then we can respectfully agree to disagree.

You are arguing with a troll. It will make something else up...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it'll be more palatable to MCPS and BOE if this ratio was 50/50.

I am wondering why not include all kids in the lottery and just pick and send them to regional program? why do you even have a 85% threshold when 99 the percentile is assigned to high FARM school with no local cohort and 85th percentil is placed in regional program? Why is MCPS putting some kids at a disadvantage while promoting others? Isn't that discrimination?

There are long lasting implications to what MCPS is doing to these kids. These future leaders are going to grow up, thinking that hardwork and merit does not matter. I am more worried about that than GT programs admission. On the other side, kids who are benefitting from non objective process such as lottery aka will believe in luck more than determination and hardwork as they see that hard work and higher scores did not matter after all to get into GT programs.

I dunno, I don’t think I’m with you on this one. My 99 map kid didn’t work hard for that score. It’s more luck that his brain works in a way that scores well on these types of tests. GT programs were never designed for the hardest working students. Giftedness has nothing to do with determination.

Perhaps you should let MCPS know about your kid so that they can place someone else in that spot. Thiese kids that we are talking about are already recognized by the MCPS as gifted learners. Only due to the lottery these kids are at a disadvantage and have to attend high FARM schools with no local cohort. someone argues that gifted kids from high FARMS deserve to be in regional program beacuse they do not have a local cohort. But then why does MCPS send gifted kids with 99th percentile to that very same high FARMS school with no local cohort? MCPS is failing these kids and If you teach these kids that the merit and their academic achievement does not matter, then in the future, they will receprocate the same way once they grow up and become the decision makers.

[Anonymous]

Map M- 99th percentile, MAP R- 99th percentile, all As in CES, and 99th percentile when they took the Cogat in 3rd. In both lottery pools, but selected for neither magnet. Their older sibling went through one of the magnets, and honestly our 5th grader is even a better fit for the magnet than their sibling. We are disappointed because we know what MCPS curriculum and peer group was like for them before CES, and how much happier they have been in CES academically and socially. Hopefully they will find challenges at their home middle school, but it is still disappointing.