Middle school magnet results?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it was Pyle. Where's that chart ...

NP. It was 100% not Pyle. Pyle had an extremely high percentage of students, much higher than the other Bethesda, Potomac schools that were "highly able." It was kind of shocking to see the difference actually.
The lower number was Westland.

[Anonymous]

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was Pyle. Where's that chart ...

NP. It was 100% not Pyle. Pyle had an extremely high percentage of students, much higher than the other Bethesda, Potomac schools that were "highly able." It was kind of shocking to see the difference actually.
The lower number was Westland.

If you count PARCC but it was similar to other wealthy schools for other measures.
Westland was the outlier, in a not good way.

[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.

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.

That person is anti-Asian. You sound like you're pretty racist too.

[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.

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.

Excuse me, but the subject is middle school magnets, not elementary magnets, and who made you the thread police? People are jumping all over the place? What's wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was Pyle. Where's that chart ...

NP. It was 100% not Pyle. Pyle had an extremely high percentage of students, much higher than the other Bethesda, Potomac schools that were "highly able." It was kind of shocking to see the difference actually.
The lower number was Westland.

If you count PARCC but it was similar to other wealthy schools for other measures.
Westland was the outlier, in a not good way.

Westland is a way smaller school than Pyle.

[Anonymous]

Yes, 800 students at Westland vs. 1500 at Pyle.
Looking at Silver Spring International MS with higher number of highly-able kids than Pyle despite a smaller student population (1100 vs P's 1500).

[Anonymous]

Percentage wise for Westland still very low numbers, so low they can't reveal them.

[Anonymous]

Remember for peer cohort purposes which were previously used it was raw numbers that mattered rather than percentages.
Put kids from larger schools at a disadvantage if there were more highly able peers.

[Anonymous]

The list supports what people saying on the board about Frost, Hoover and Pyle having strong classmates but I think people forget that you can have the same experience at Sligo and SSI.

[Anonymous]

Sligo MS also has similar number of highly-abled kids to Pyle although it has less than half the student population of Pyle. Sligo has only 700 kids at that school. It really makes you think differently about Pyle when you look at these numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That person is anti-Asian. You sound like you're pretty racist too.

Again with the unsubstantive response and unsubstantiated aspersions. Leave the conversation if you can't provide information or a point of view of value to others

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was Pyle. Where's that chart ...

NP. It was 100% not Pyle. Pyle had an extremely high percentage of students, much higher than the other Bethesda, Potomac schools that were "highly able." It was kind of shocking to see the difference actually.
The lower number was Westland.

So ... you're wrong, and the opposite is true. Frost and Hoover MS both have a higher number of highly able students, as measured by MAP-R for example, than Pyle EVEN THOUGH they have two-thirds the student population (each at just around 1000 students). Those are the raw numbers. Percentage-wise, both Frost and Hoover have significantly higher percentages of highly able students than Pyle does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a very good point. You had parents a few years ago acting like being FORCED to attend Pyle or Frost or whatever highly segregated home MS they were assigned was basically consigning their child to a life of drudgery and wage slavery.

If those parents spend 1/10th of their efforts trying to get home school differentiation, it would be a win-win for everyone.

A few years ago, numerous motivated parents tried to get home school differentiation and this is where we are today. They spent significant time meeting with middle school principals and CES teachers along with writing letters and emails to AEI. They wanted their kids in their home school with enriched classes, not necessarily at the magnets.

Thank you for raising this. The PPPs childish insults aside, they are just factually incorrect. No parent wants to have their kid on a bus 2 hours a day to attend Eastern instead of going to Pyle. I would be surprised if Eastern has any students in the Whitman cluster at all. People, particularly those in the Whitman cluster, have always wanted more home school accelerated programs.

Yes, there are students from the Whitman cluster attending Eastern, in fact from all over down county, including Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac. I'm surprised you're surprised.

- parent with a magnet directory

And lots at TPMS. At least a few years ago when my kids were there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was Pyle. Where's that chart ...

NP. It was 100% not Pyle. Pyle had an extremely high percentage of students, much higher than the other Bethesda, Potomac schools that were "highly able." It was kind of shocking to see the difference actually.
The lower number was Westland.

So ... you're wrong, and the opposite is true. Frost and Hoover MS both have a higher number of highly able students, as measured by MAP-R for example, than Pyle EVEN THOUGH they have two-thirds the student population (each at just around 1000 students). Those are the raw numbers. Percentage-wise, both Frost and Hoover have significantly higher percentages of highly able students than Pyle does.

While the person remembering Pyle had a high percentage of students was wrong...
I think the numbers can be interpreted in different ways. Yes, Frost and Hoover have a higher percentage of students. But in terms of raw numbers it's similar and I think most people care more about the raw numbers if you are talking about cohorted classes like AIM and HIGH. Those students will be grouped together so you really just care about the total number of students.