Please sign this petition to continue countywide magnets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

[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.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That ship has sailed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That ship has sailed

No it hasn't. MCPS could absolutely do this -- especially if it diverted some of the resources to creating 40 magnet programs across the county. We should not have to go to another school to get the basics. MCPS would do much better to put the time and energy into getting the basics right than to expanding these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That ship has sailed

No it hasn't. MCPS could absolutely do this -- especially if it diverted some of the resources to creating 40 magnet programs across the county. We should not have to go to another school to get the basics. MCPS would do much better to put the time and energy into getting the basics right than to expanding these programs.

They started an audit of honors classes in the spring to determine whether classes are rigorous enough to keep the honors label, right? Has anyone heard anything more on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That ship has sailed

No it hasn't. MCPS could absolutely do this -- especially if it diverted some of the resources to creating 40 magnet programs across the county. We should not have to go to another school to get the basics. MCPS would do much better to put the time and energy into getting the basics right than to expanding these programs.

They started an audit of honors classes in the spring to determine whether classes are rigorous enough to keep the honors label, right? Has anyone heard anything more on that?

Well, the health class is still honors, so nothing has come of it yet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

No. You’re just unable to respond in any meaningful way to questions about why you continue to assert that the magnet programs are serving “the best” of MCPS when they’re serving very few kids from very few schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

No. You’re just unable to respond in any meaningful way to questions about why you continue to assert that the magnet programs are serving “the best” of MCPS when they’re serving very few kids from very few schools.

That’s not what’s being asserted here. Keep on building that straw man though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

No. You’re just unable to respond in any meaningful way to questions about why you continue to assert that the magnet programs are serving “the best” of MCPS when they’re serving very few kids from very few schools.

That’s not what’s being asserted here. Keep on building that straw man though.

Why don’t you respond to the questions above then? they’re good questions about flaws in the current programs but you have no answer. You just want everything to stay the same.

[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: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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

No. You’re just unable to respond in any meaningful way to questions about why you continue to assert that the magnet programs are serving “the best” of MCPS when they’re serving very few kids from very few schools.

That’s not what’s being asserted here. Keep on building that straw man though.

Why don’t you respond to the questions above then? they’re good questions about flaws in the current programs but you have no answer. You just want everything to stay the same.

Dude, look up the meaning of a straw man argument and then get back to us once you’ve internalized its meaning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

MCPS is committing to expanding STEM programs, but have they indicated that they will change the selection process of the criteria-based programs in any way? I don’t know if that’s even changing.

[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: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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

No. You’re just unable to respond in any meaningful way to questions about why you continue to assert that the magnet programs are serving “the best” of MCPS when they’re serving very few kids from very few schools.

That’s not what’s being asserted here. Keep on building that straw man though.

Why don’t you respond to the questions above then? they’re good questions about flaws in the current programs but you have no answer. You just want everything to stay the same.

Dude, look up the meaning of a straw man argument and then get back to us once you’ve internalized its meaning.

We get it you have no answers to questions and just want to scream “they’re killing the magnet. “. That’s why so few parents are signing your petition.

[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: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.

Ok great so MCPS can build out more regional magnets, but that doesn’t mean they have to get rid of the county wide ones. Not all kids are going to want to attend a magnet, even if it’s the next high school over. We all make choices about what we value and prioritize.

If you want your kids to attend a "magnet" where 40% of the kids come from 2 high school areas, and call it something that serves the "best" students in MCPS, enjoy lying to yourself. But obviously you don't care, as long as your kids get what is convenient to them.

You don’t make any sense

No. You’re just unable to respond in any meaningful way to questions about why you continue to assert that the magnet programs are serving “the best” of MCPS when they’re serving very few kids from very few schools.

That’s not what’s being asserted here. Keep on building that straw man though.

Why don’t you respond to the questions above then? they’re good questions about flaws in the current programs but you have no answer. You just want everything to stay the same.

Dude, look up the meaning of a straw man argument and then get back to us once you’ve internalized its meaning.

We get it you have no answers to questions and just want to scream “they’re killing the magnet. “. That’s why so few parents are signing your petition.

Not to your questions, which are fabrications of what’s being argued