mcps. sounds about right. (GT admissions changes)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

DP.. don't need the assigned MS information. All they have to do is release the median scores of accepted students, like they used to do. Why did they stop releasing these test scores?

More than likely, it was because it become obvious that some students who were not admitted because of "peer cohort" scored much higher than the admitted students without peer cohort.

Using peer cohort was the only way to increase other groups. No one is against universal screening. It's the peer cohort nonsense that some people are upset about.

No dog in this fight. My DC#1 already went through HGC and opted out of MS magnet due to the long commute. I knew DC#2 was not qualified for magnet.

As the teacher in the article stated, the peer group now in those magnets are not as high achieving so they are going to have to lower the expectations now. Shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

DP.. don't need the assigned MS information. All they have to do is release the median scores of accepted students, like they used to do. Why did they stop releasing these test scores?

More than likely, it was because it become obvious that some students who were not admitted because of "peer cohort" scored much higher than the admitted students without peer cohort.

Using peer cohort was the only way to increase other groups. No one is against universal screening. It's the peer cohort nonsense that some people are upset about.

No dog in this fight. My DC#1 already went through HGC and opted out of MS magnet due to the long commute. I knew DC#2 was not qualified for magnet.

As the teacher in the article stated, the peer group now in those magnets are not as high achieving so they are going to have to lower the expectations now. Shame.

Do you mean the parent who is in the PTA and a lawyer? She is not a teacher.

Or do you mean the ES teacher teaching in a Center. Because she doesn’t teach in a MS Magnet so she doesn’t know what will happen in one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

DP.. don't need the assigned MS information. All they have to do is release the median scores of accepted students, like they used to do. Why did they stop releasing these test scores?

More than likely, it was because it become obvious that some students who were not admitted because of "peer cohort" scored much higher than the admitted students without peer cohort.

Using peer cohort was the only way to increase other groups. No one is against universal screening. It's the peer cohort nonsense that some people are upset about.

No dog in this fight. My DC#1 already went through HGC and opted out of MS magnet due to the long commute. I knew DC#2 was not qualified for magnet.

As the teacher in the article stated, the peer group now in those magnets are not as high achieving so they are going to have to lower the expectations now. Shame.

Do you mean the parent who is in the PTA and a lawyer? She is not a teacher.

Or do you mean the ES teacher teaching in a Center. Because she doesn’t teach in a MS Magnet so she doesn’t know what will happen in one.

The article isn't just about MS. Changes were made to ES magnets, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with universal screening, but using the cohort criteria really does exclude the brighter kids.

But don’t they get the advanced classes at their home school? I thought they send the kids who are advanced but there’s not enough (20?) other advanced kids at their school, and where there are enough kids to form a class they keep them at their home school? I’d prefer my kid be at the home school, unless the magnet is close.

No. If it was the exact same curriculum, then yes, but it's not the same curriculum, so no.. those one or two classes does not make a magnet program.

Oh, but three classes does?!?! The magnets only have three magnet classes, others magnet students take with "regular" students from that school. So, if they have two magnet classes at their home school and now have the time they would have had to spend on the bus to participate in an extra curricular activity or club, win/win for everyone... seems like a move in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

DP.. don't need the assigned MS information. All they have to do is release the median scores of accepted students, like they used to do. Why did they stop releasing these test scores?

More than likely, it was because it become obvious that some students who were not admitted because of "peer cohort" scored much higher than the admitted students without peer cohort.

Using peer cohort was the only way to increase other groups. No one is against universal screening. It's the peer cohort nonsense that some people are upset about.

No dog in this fight. My DC#1 already went through HGC and opted out of MS magnet due to the long commute. I knew DC#2 was not qualified for magnet.

As the teacher in the article stated, the peer group now in those magnets are not as high achieving so they are going to have to lower the expectations now. Shame.

My son took the CogAt for the MS magnet and the reported scores were by percentile, i.e., 99%. MCPS claims that they never received a numerical score from the testing company. How would the report they report the median scores of accepted students? The only median that they could report in the MAP scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was interesting and had not heard this number before:

"The county also changed its paradigm about whom the special schools should serve: not the students with the highest abilities across the county, but rather, those students who are outliers at their neighborhood schools, with fewer than 20 peers with similar abilities."

This number makes sense for our CES, where the demographics did not change this year - based on simple visual observation at open house and BTSN. But I've never seen this figure bandied about before.

Could be that students attend a title one school - they host free science camp a could weeks each summer.

[Anonymous]

^ couple weeks each summer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

DP.. don't need the assigned MS information. All they have to do is release the median scores of accepted students, like they used to do. Why did they stop releasing these test scores?

More than likely, it was because it become obvious that some students who were not admitted because of "peer cohort" scored much higher than the admitted students without peer cohort.

Using peer cohort was the only way to increase other groups. No one is against universal screening. It's the peer cohort nonsense that some people are upset about.

No dog in this fight. My DC#1 already went through HGC and opted out of MS magnet due to the long commute. I knew DC#2 was not qualified for magnet.

As the teacher in the article stated, the peer group now in those magnets are not as high achieving so they are going to have to lower the expectations now. Shame.

Do you mean the parent who is in the PTA and a lawyer? She is not a teacher.

Or do you mean the ES teacher teaching in a Center. Because she doesn’t teach in a MS Magnet so she doesn’t know what will happen in one.

The article isn't just about MS. Changes were made to ES magnets, too.

But you are using her as evidence to a specific claim about the impact of the MS selection process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

+1

In quite a few of our students are the sole student or one of only 2 or 3 from their ES. That information would definitely be identifying.

Yes, because so few were admitted from the W feeders. So give the number of students admitted from each home ES (I can tell you exactly 0 were admitted from my 10-ranked home ES), and then give a list of test scores of admitted students that are not broken down. Would be very helpful information for parents whose kids might be interested in the magnet. If no-one or only 1 is getting in from a home ES then you're clear your chances are virtually nil. Test scores would give you a range, though I suspect they will be quite variable.

And who exactly ranked your ES a 10?

Great Schools, you know for across the board high achieving performance, including PARCC--one of the criteria the magnets also consider. Most schools feeding into this particular CES, the most competitive, are 10 ranked ESs. Those kids competed against other kids in some of the best schools in the county to get into the CES that is the hardest to get into. Yet 95% of them were deemed unworthy to attend the magnet MSs due to "peer cohort." They had 5 PARCC scores, 99% everything test scores, and straight As (or close to) at the most competitive CES in the county. If the curricula were the same, that would be fine. But they're not even close, as the poster who put up the Eastern reading list, has shown. If universal screening captured students with similar (not necessarily identical!) stats in under-achieving schools, fine. BUT MCPS WILL NOT RELEASE THE MEDIAN SCORES, so parents are rightly skeptical that the same rigor was used to assess all students.

Not anyone assessing students for admission into the MS magnets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do you need the assigned middle school? It's really spread out this year and releasing that information would be a violation of privacy for much of the student population since it could easily lead to student/score discovery.
Then again, this is about you and your "sour grapes"--not the process.

DP.. don't need the assigned MS information. All they have to do is release the median scores of accepted students, like they used to do. Why did they stop releasing these test scores?

More than likely, it was because it become obvious that some students who were not admitted because of "peer cohort" scored much higher than the admitted students without peer cohort.

Using peer cohort was the only way to increase other groups. No one is against universal screening. It's the peer cohort nonsense that some people are upset about.

No dog in this fight. My DC#1 already went through HGC and opted out of MS magnet due to the long commute. I knew DC#2 was not qualified for magnet.

As the teacher in the article stated, the peer group now in those magnets are not as high achieving so they are going to have to lower the expectations now. Shame.

Do you mean the parent who is in the PTA and a lawyer? She is not a teacher.

Or do you mean the ES teacher teaching in a Center. Because she doesn’t teach in a MS Magnet so she doesn’t know what will happen in one.

The article isn't just about MS. Changes were made to ES magnets, too.

But you are using her as evidence to a specific claim about the impact of the MS selection process.

? I'm talking about how the change in selection (using peer cohort, which is also used in ES selection) has changed the caliber of students in the magnet programs.

Again, the changes didn't just affect MS. The article referenced a teacher in an ES, not MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such sour grapes!

lol I don't even have kids. Overall quality and rigor has gone down

I teach in a MCPS MS Magnet and disagree. Give me specific examples from the Magnet classes you are teaching this year to support your argument.

It's great to hear from a magnet teacher. I suspect that there aren't enough magnet seats in MCPS and there are probably many students who could be magnet students without lowering the overall quality and rigor? What do you think?

Also, do you have any opinion on the programs being installed in local middle schools so that those with a gifted local peer group don't need the magnet?

Thanks for the great work you do. Both my kids went through a magnet middle school (don't know if it's yours) and had a fantastic experience. It challenged them and gave them an excellent foundation. I'm often a critic of MCPS, but the magnet program was great.

I’m uncertain about adding another 20-25 students to my current load. Whether that would be a fifth class or simply four larger classes, I’m sure it would change some instruction and assessment options currently very doable. I would be happy to see at least two more Magnet programs open. This would allow many more seats (200) and ease the burden of the long bus ride for some families. However, to recruit the Magnet teachers needed, MCPS needs to do a better job in how it treats its professional staff, especially new hires.

I attended the summer training for the enriched course in my subject area and continue to follow developing lessons. I think that if executed faithfully by the selected teachers, it will be both fun and rigorous for students in schools with a large gifted cohort. I question a school deciding to offer it to the entire sixth grade. That seems a parent-pleasing move rather than having carefully assessed student needs. I will definitely touch base with relevant people next week to see if this is truly what is happening. I suspect the poster may have confused the Advanced course with the enriched one.

Thank you. I’m glad it was a worthwhile experience for your children. The past two weeks, I’ve carefully watched the students that some posters here don’t think deserve to be in my classroom. These kids are not just holding their own, they are excited and already greatly contributing to our learning community. They are as curious, hard-working, delightfully smart, and quirky as the present-seventh graders who were admitted under the old system. The only sixth grade student I have concerns about handling the rigor is one who would have come from the traditional pool.

wow, after such extensive and intensive search, MCPS still placed kid who aroused teacher’s concern. How good is that selection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprised to see the article said that outside testing was used to qualify. I did not think this was true.

It was just one of the many ways wealthier parents could game the system in past years.

the prior system sounds ridiculous. parent recommendations and teacher recommendations needed to qualify instead of universal screening.

There was also a test.

They changed the test last year. Messed up some of the prep program success rates.

This is positively Trumpian!

FYI: *even MCPS* is not claiming what you believe. If what you believe is true, MCPS could just shrug and say, "tough luck, the test changed, and your kids did not do well." But they don't, because we are talking about kids who had no problem acing the new test, and aced PARCC/MAP/etc. They were not admitted to TPMS/Eastern this year solely because of the peer group criterion. These are kids for whom the test did not make any difference.



A thought experiment: MCPS could have first tried universal testing along with a new test but without the peer group criterion. Why do you think they included the peer group factor on top of the other two?

Because there is very limited space in the magnets.They have to ration spots and give them to students who need them most. Kids with little to no peer group!

All schools have peer groups based on the current local magnet offering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP who said CES kids are "often" 99th percentile at 2-4 grades ahead:

1. There's no way the established evaluation criteria can capture that. The most you can see is that a kid is at the 99th percentile among kids his/her age. You can also see that the kid is reading ahead of grade level, but that doesn't firmly establish that the kid is 99th percentile at 2-4 grades ahead.

2. You don't understand exactly how rare it is for a kid to be performing at the top of the curve 2-4 grades ahead. That would mean a 4th grader would be able to test ahead of nearly all 8th graders. While such people exist, to say that's how to "often" describe CES kids falls into the typical DCUM trap of thinking gifted kids in this area are somehow lightyears ahead of anyone else. It's simply not true.

If you read the manual of MAP, you can identify the percentile if your child is 2-4 grades ahead.

[Anonymous]

I have it on good authority that the peer groups in the magnets this year are the strongest ever largely because of universal screening. In the past the only kids in the program were the ones whose parents recommended them and that bar was much lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such sour grapes!

lol I don't even have kids. Overall quality and rigor has gone down

I teach in a MCPS MS Magnet and disagree. Give me specific examples from the Magnet classes you are teaching this year to support your argument.

It's great to hear from a magnet teacher. I suspect that there aren't enough magnet seats in MCPS and there are probably many students who could be magnet students without lowering the overall quality and rigor? What do you think?

Also, do you have any opinion on the programs being installed in local middle schools so that those with a gifted local peer group don't need the magnet?

Thanks for the great work you do. Both my kids went through a magnet middle school (don't know if it's yours) and had a fantastic experience. It challenged them and gave them an excellent foundation. I'm often a critic of MCPS, but the magnet program was great.

I’m uncertain about adding another 20-25 students to my current load. Whether that would be a fifth class or simply four larger classes, I’m sure it would change some instruction and assessment options currently very doable. I would be happy to see at least two more Magnet programs open. This would allow many more seats (200) and ease the burden of the long bus ride for some families. However, to recruit the Magnet teachers needed, MCPS needs to do a better job in how it treats its professional staff, especially new hires.

I attended the summer training for the enriched course in my subject area and continue to follow developing lessons. I think that if executed faithfully by the selected teachers, it will be both fun and rigorous for students in schools with a large gifted cohort. I question a school deciding to offer it to the entire sixth grade. That seems a parent-pleasing move rather than having carefully assessed student needs. I will definitely touch base with relevant people next week to see if this is truly what is happening. I suspect the poster may have confused the Advanced course with the enriched one.

Thank you. I’m glad it was a worthwhile experience for your children. The past two weeks, I’ve carefully watched the students that some posters here don’t think deserve to be in my classroom. These kids are not just holding their own, they are excited and already greatly contributing to our learning community. They are as curious, hard-working, delightfully smart, and quirky as the present-seventh graders who were admitted under the old system. The only sixth grade student I have concerns about handling the rigor is one who would have come from the traditional pool.

I am genuinely curious - how do you know that one particular kid would have come from the "traditional pool"? What is "the traditional pool?" (And how can you be sure that none of the others would have come from the "traditional pool?")

We formerly received a large number of our students from a few specific schools. That is not the case this year.

The overall student quality is higher this year than in the past when students were selected from a small pool and nominated by their parents.