Please sign this petition to continue countywide magnets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

Then we shouldn’t have any accelerated programs at all. We shouldn’t be devising regional programs that still include a limit on seats or have any minimum criteria. If there’s no good reason to put 99th% students together, there’s no good reason to put 95th% or 90th% students together either. What’s the benefit of any differentiation?

How do you know those kids are even the 99th % kids? Most of the Blair SMCS kids come from 2 high school clusters. HS Magnet selection is based on a single MAP-M or MAP-R data point--there's no COGAT or other test of cognitive ability involved. The audacity of parents to claim that their kids are the smartest in the county astounds me--the selection criteria are narrow and not indicative of ability, and the geographic range of students opting into these programs is so narrow .
I doubt there's a shred of evidence that a 95% MAP kid is performing far below the level of a 99% MAP kid--please enlighten us to explain your evidence if you have it.

Does winning state and national academic competitions count as evidence?

No. I'm sorry you're having problems with the concept of evidence, but all you have is a theory, and a wrong one at that. I hypothesize (without evidence) that if more students from more geographic areas were given the opportunity for advanced coursework that MCPS would win more state and national academic competitions. I do not believe that Blair SMCS is capturing the most talented students in the county when 40% of its students are coming from 2 high school areas.

We tried that with TPMS. Guess what happened? The lower-performing kids who won the lottery to get the "advanced coursework" in the lottery lost STEM competitions to the kids who lost the lottery and were stuck with "non-advanced coursework" at their home schools. Then those kids who lost the lottery went to Blair and continued winning STEM competitions. But as you said, you prefer to argue "without evidence", so none of this matters.

No, some didn't get into Blair and were waitlisted and now don't get to do STEM or Stem competitions which puts them at a disadvantage for college. We have zero stem clubs and only the basics.

Then ask your high schooler to start a STEM club at their school.

[Anonymous]

This petition feels very elitist. The current system is set up to catch such a small percentage of our student population…and now that they want even more of the G&T kids to have access, y’all are against it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

No, you are misstating what people have said on this thread:
1) If you are only picking 100 of "the best" kids a year, you had better make sure that your selection process is valid, and not that you're just getting the kids whose parents send them to cram schools every summer to game the MAP, which is a test of exposure to material not cognitive ability like COGAT. Your assertion that MAP tests cognitive ability shows you're ignorant of the test's objectives--if you look at the NWEA website, MAP measures academic knowledge and skills at age-appropriate levels, it is not designed as a test of giftedness as COGAT is. It's also questionable that SMCS Blair and RMIB make their selections only on MAP-M OR MAP-R and not both, which could result in a very unbalanced student profile.
2) You are assuming that anonymous internet people (or which are more than 1 on this thread) are all against your preservation of the status quo because their kids are not 99%ers. That is also not the case. There are parents with 99% COGAT and 99% MAP scores who do not want their teenager to lose two hours commuting 2 hours per day when they could be doing sports and other extracurriculars and turn down magnet slots or do not apply. That doesn't mean that these families wouldn't jump at the chance to have a closer option that offered more enrichment opportunities than what are currently available for their high performing students. As has been said repeatedly on this thread, there's a reason 2 schools send 40% of the kids to SMCS Blair, and it's not because there aren't talented STEM students in other parts of the county.
3) There is no evidence that the 99% threshold has any evidence behind it or that the academic merit of a kid with a 95% MAP differs from a 99% MAP. Show us evidence that the magnet programs will be damaged by allowing 95%ers, or even 90%ers in it. We're waiting.

[Anonymous]

High School years ago banned Magnet Schools and Honor programs. They then took the funding and created a second smaller High School with a tighter student to teacher ratio, and put good teachers there and it was remedial focused and kids with learning issues, language problems etc.

The students who needed help the most were place there till grades could get back up and reading scores and math scores rose.

The main HS ratings hot up as in reality 90 percent of students are smart. It is usually the 2-9 percent that drag down classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will not sign, and my kids have both been in a magnet. One graduated in 2025, and the other is in HS.

It's been a good experience for them, but there's far too much talent in the county to limit the participation to a few hundred students per grade level per year.

This. Regional magnet programs are a good idea.

+1 The "I got mine" posters are out in force, including hijacking parent chat groups at TPMS.

No. More opportunity is good and if we have to "dilute" classes that only 10 kids per year take in MCPS, so be it.

Those classes that only 10 kids take won’t be diluted; they’ll be eliminated because those 10 kids will be distributed among many schools, none of which will have the talent pool to field enough students for these classes. That’s how these STEM programs will be diluted. We’ll have many good programs and no exceptional ones.

If the very good programs provide access to 3x the number of students, as long as the delta between exceptional and very good isn't too large, then that is a win from the perspective of maximizing educational benefit across the county.

I trust the SMCS teachers to know how big the delta is between very good STEM cohorting and exceptional STEM cohorting.

When we were in a race to develop the atomic bomb first or put a man on the moon first, we needed lots of very smart people to work together and a handful of geniuses to get us across the finish line. It seems like it would be beneficial to cater our educational system to both.

Why limit it to Montgomery County then? Why not one magnet for the best and the brightest across the state of Maryland?

NC has a fantastic HS residential magnet, but only for 11th and 12th grade. Logistically, and some point the commute is impossible, or it has to be residential, which is a huge life disruption.

Anyway, the obvious answer is that the right geo scope is whatever can fill classes.

Virginia has this. It’s called the Governor’s School. Kids are only there half a day and the other half at their home school.

“The Virginia Governor's School Program has been designed to assist divisions as they meet the needs of a small population of students whose learning levels are remarkably different from their age-level peers. The foundation of the Virginia Governor's School Program centers on best practices in the field of gifted education and the presentation of advanced content to able learners.“


https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/specialized-instruction/governor-s-schools

I did that when I was a kid in VA and thought it was so disruptive. I was missing everything at the home school.

Yes, what so many people are missing is that kids, even super genius ones, are still kids, who are social beings and part of a community. Their academic needs can be met without taking them out of their normal school community, and it won’t make them dumber or “water down” their academic experience if they’re made to mix with kids who only test at the 95% on a MAP test. I really think most of what MCPS does regarding magnet/gifted programming is about responding to squeaky wheel parents who (a) seem to need a rarefied experience for their kids and (b) can’t handle change.

What you’re failing to grasp is that we’re not talking about adding 95th% and 96th% students to programs that are already chock full of 98th% and 99th% students; what is being proposed is spreading out the 98th% and 99th% students among 6 programs instead of 2, while also admitting more students overall. The problem isn’t adding more students; it’s lowering the concentration of the most advanced students in any program. 99th% students will know significantly fewer other 99th% students going forward. Putting these kids together is valuable. Adding 95th% students isn’t harmful, but splitting up the 99th% is.

DP - how is the bolded harmful? Be specific, please. What research has been done showing that splitting up the 99th percentile kids is harmful? Showing that it's worth the substantial cost to the rest of the students? Showing that the excessive focus on academic achievement from a young age benefits these kids in the long run?

I agree with the PP who referenced the breathtaking entitlement of parents who want these programs to continue. Public education is about meeting the needs of as many kids as possible as well as possible. Someone who wants something different needs to look elsewhere.

What is the "the substantial cost to the rest of the students"? Be specific.

Why are you hell-bent on destruction? Why do you put your trust in the people who have repeatedly failed to educate children, instead of the people who have repeatedly succeeded?

The countywide magnets get a lot of resources, yes? In terms of special staff, extra bus routes, etc. Those extra resources go to a very, very small percentage not only of MCPS' overall student population, but the population of kids who could benefit from enriched and accelerated programs. The latter in particular do not receive the enrichment at their home schools through no fault of their own. That sucks.

Also, lose the hyperbole. Why are you (and others) hell-bent on insisting that the only true measure of MCPS' success is in how well it educates the assumed top 0.5% of its students? That's embarassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

No, you are misstating what people have said on this thread:
1) If you are only picking 100 of "the best" kids a year, you had better make sure that your selection process is valid, and not that you're just getting the kids whose parents send them to cram schools every summer to game the MAP, which is a test of exposure to material not cognitive ability like COGAT. Your assertion that MAP tests cognitive ability shows you're ignorant of the test's objectives--if you look at the NWEA website, MAP measures academic knowledge and skills at age-appropriate levels, it is not designed as a test of giftedness as COGAT is. It's also questionable that SMCS Blair and RMIB make their selections only on MAP-M OR MAP-R and not both, which could result in a very unbalanced student profile.
2) You are assuming that anonymous internet people (or which are more than 1 on this thread) are all against your preservation of the status quo because their kids are not 99%ers. That is also not the case. There are parents with 99% COGAT and 99% MAP scores who do not want their teenager to lose two hours commuting 2 hours per day when they could be doing sports and other extracurriculars and turn down magnet slots or do not apply. That doesn't mean that these families wouldn't jump at the chance to have a closer option that offered more enrichment opportunities than what are currently available for their high performing students. As has been said repeatedly on this thread, there's a reason 2 schools send 40% of the kids to SMCS Blair, and it's not because there aren't talented STEM students in other parts of the county.
3) There is no evidence that the 99% threshold has any evidence behind it or that the academic merit of a kid with a 95% MAP differs from a 99% MAP. Show us evidence that the magnet programs will be damaged by allowing 95%ers, or even 90%ers in it. We're waiting.

+1 Why are so many people hell bent on preserving a program with obvious flaws in its design? Fix the selection criteria, fix the geographic disparities, and maybe you will have a program worth bragging about. You don't need to be knee jerk against any change-if your kid is truly one of the best, they'll be able to be selected even if more kids apply and the selection criteria is expanded beyond MAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

No, you are misstating what people have said on this thread:
1) If you are only picking 100 of "the best" kids a year, you had better make sure that your selection process is valid, and not that you're just getting the kids whose parents send them to cram schools every summer to game the MAP, which is a test of exposure to material not cognitive ability like COGAT. Your assertion that MAP tests cognitive ability shows you're ignorant of the test's objectives--if you look at the NWEA website, MAP measures academic knowledge and skills at age-appropriate levels, it is not designed as a test of giftedness as COGAT is. It's also questionable that SMCS Blair and RMIB make their selections only on MAP-M OR MAP-R and not both, which could result in a very unbalanced student profile.
2) You are assuming that anonymous internet people (or which are more than 1 on this thread) are all against your preservation of the status quo because their kids are not 99%ers. That is also not the case. There are parents with 99% COGAT and 99% MAP scores who do not want their teenager to lose two hours commuting 2 hours per day when they could be doing sports and other extracurriculars and turn down magnet slots or do not apply. That doesn't mean that these families wouldn't jump at the chance to have a closer option that offered more enrichment opportunities than what are currently available for their high performing students. As has been said repeatedly on this thread, there's a reason 2 schools send 40% of the kids to SMCS Blair, and it's not because there aren't talented STEM students in other parts of the county.
3) There is no evidence that the 99% threshold has any evidence behind it or that the academic merit of a kid with a 95% MAP differs from a 99% MAP. Show us evidence that the magnet programs will be damaged by allowing 95%ers, or even 90%ers in it. We're waiting.

We don’t even have to worry about it. We’re probably still not adding enough seats for 90th% students to be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

No, you are misstating what people have said on this thread:
1) If you are only picking 100 of "the best" kids a year, you had better make sure that your selection process is valid, and not that you're just getting the kids whose parents send them to cram schools every summer to game the MAP, which is a test of exposure to material not cognitive ability like COGAT. Your assertion that MAP tests cognitive ability shows you're ignorant of the test's objectives--if you look at the NWEA website, MAP measures academic knowledge and skills at age-appropriate levels, it is not designed as a test of giftedness as COGAT is. It's also questionable that SMCS Blair and RMIB make their selections only on MAP-M OR MAP-R and not both, which could result in a very unbalanced student profile.
2) You are assuming that anonymous internet people (or which are more than 1 on this thread) are all against your preservation of the status quo because their kids are not 99%ers. That is also not the case. There are parents with 99% COGAT and 99% MAP scores who do not want their teenager to lose two hours commuting 2 hours per day when they could be doing sports and other extracurriculars and turn down magnet slots or do not apply. That doesn't mean that these families wouldn't jump at the chance to have a closer option that offered more enrichment opportunities than what are currently available for their high performing students. As has been said repeatedly on this thread, there's a reason 2 schools send 40% of the kids to SMCS Blair, and it's not because there aren't talented STEM students in other parts of the county.
3) There is no evidence that the 99% threshold has any evidence behind it or that the academic merit of a kid with a 95% MAP differs from a 99% MAP. Show us evidence that the magnet programs will be damaged by allowing 95%ers, or even 90%ers in it. We're waiting.

We don’t even have to worry about it. We’re probably still not adding enough seats for 90th% students to be admitted.

Yes, let's not consider the design of the program, or concern ourselves with the details about who is selected and how during a once in a decade program design change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

No, you are misstating what people have said on this thread:
1) If you are only picking 100 of "the best" kids a year, you had better make sure that your selection process is valid, and not that you're just getting the kids whose parents send them to cram schools every summer to game the MAP, which is a test of exposure to material not cognitive ability like COGAT. Your assertion that MAP tests cognitive ability shows you're ignorant of the test's objectives--if you look at the NWEA website, MAP measures academic knowledge and skills at age-appropriate levels, it is not designed as a test of giftedness as COGAT is. It's also questionable that SMCS Blair and RMIB make their selections only on MAP-M OR MAP-R and not both, which could result in a very unbalanced student profile.
2) You are assuming that anonymous internet people (or which are more than 1 on this thread) are all against your preservation of the status quo because their kids are not 99%ers. That is also not the case. There are parents with 99% COGAT and 99% MAP scores who do not want their teenager to lose two hours commuting 2 hours per day when they could be doing sports and other extracurriculars and turn down magnet slots or do not apply. That doesn't mean that these families wouldn't jump at the chance to have a closer option that offered more enrichment opportunities than what are currently available for their high performing students. As has been said repeatedly on this thread, there's a reason 2 schools send 40% of the kids to SMCS Blair, and it's not because there aren't talented STEM students in other parts of the county.
3) There is no evidence that the 99% threshold has any evidence behind it or that the academic merit of a kid with a 95% MAP differs from a 99% MAP. Show us evidence that the magnet programs will be damaged by allowing 95%ers, or even 90%ers in it. We're waiting.

+1 Why are so many people hell bent on preserving a program with obvious flaws in its design? Fix the selection criteria, fix the geographic disparities, and maybe you will have a program worth bragging about. You don't need to be knee jerk against any change-if your kid is truly one of the best, they'll be able to be selected even if more kids apply and the selection criteria is expanded beyond MAP.

+2 My kids are approaching magnet age, so I don't have experience with the current setup, but I've met several parents who have told me their kids were accepted to magnets, but that they chose to decline the slot due to the commute. Either they're all lying and their kids weren't actually accepted, or MCPS is missing out on the talents of a lot of smart kids who can't participate in programs as they're currently designed.

[Anonymous]

I don't want programs at all. I want strong local schools with classes that are actually challenging for advanced kids -- honors should mean something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is turning into its own proof why this petition is a terrible idea. Why in the world would we want to proliferate these kinds of social attitudes by preserving the hunger games associated with these peacock programs? Scatter them to the four winds (or the six regions) and start over with something that balances needs across the county, rather than just cohorting the privileged few.

Do you not want any criteria-based programs with cutoffs and cohorting or are you okay with such programs as long as significantly more kids have access? If you’re okay with it as long as more kids have access, 1) how many more kids need to have access for special programs to be acceptable and 2) what cutoffs would you use? How would you address the complaints from the parents of the students in the next lower tier, who just missed cutoffs and still don’t have access to these programs, but are just as capable as the least capable students who did make the cutoffs? Because as long as there are cutoffs, this will remain a complaint. Are we okay if double the seats? Triple? Quadruple? Admit 10-fold the number of students the existing magnets? Just curious where people want the line drawn.

The unfortunate reality is that many people simply don’t want any high-performing programs if their own kids cannot qualify for them. One of the most common complaints I hear is that MAP-M and MAP-R (used for criteria-based admissions) are “unfair” because they don’t measure cognitive ability. But anyone who has actually looked at MAP-M and MAP-R questions at the very high percentile levels knows that’s simply not true — you cannot score at the top without strong cognitive skills.

In fact, these tests measure more than just cognitive ability. They also reflect a student’s drive, discipline, and willingness to put in the work to excel. That should be celebrated, not penalized. Unfortunately, the narrative has been twisted into something negative — as though demonstrating high effort and ability is somehow unfair.

The common argument of “My kid is smart but just doesn’t test well” ignores a simple reality: at every stage of life, there are assessments that separate higher performers from others — whether it’s college admissions, professional licensing exams, or job selection processes. We cannot pretend that removing standards creates equity; it simply lowers opportunities for students who are ready and eager to be challenged.

If the real concern is expanding access, then let’s address that without destroying excellence. Solutions like compact math, regional magnets, or additional accelerated pathways can give more students opportunities that match their readiness. But dismantling or diluting county-wide magnets because not everyone qualifies is fundamentally inequitable to the students who have worked hard and demonstrated the ability to thrive in these programs.

We should be raising students up to meet high standards, not tearing down the standards themselves.

Well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This petition feels very elitist. The current system is set up to catch such a small percentage of our student population…and now that they want even more of the G&T kids to have access, y’all are against it?

You’re increasingly looking like a troll, I don’t think you even have a connection to MCPS. You’re being purposefully obtuse in misreading what is being said.