Two paths to magnet program at Richard Montgomery High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that the comprehensive kids in the IB classes are low-performing?

The average SAT score difference between IB kids and non IB kids is probably more than 700 pts. I think it's a fair thing to say. And before you ask for proof, you know as well as I do the MCPS doesn't publish that information but you can estimate - you know the number of IB kids, you know the number of RM kids (including IB), you know SAT avg for entire class, and you know avg SAT for IB kids. If you have at least HS education, you can calculate avg SAT for non IB kids. Your HW for tonight.

Good god.. How is that possible?? Gap between RMIB and regular kids that wide?

It's not, that PP is a nut.

To OP's point, here's what appears to be the explainer sheet that was sent with IB transcripts last year: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/aboutys/2016-17%20IB_Insert.pdf
It says there were 133 IB degree candidates in 2016 (118 successful) and given that 125 freshmen are admitted by application that means at least 8 local students joined (plus whatever it takes to replace attrition from the magnet). The back door may exist but it's not so significant. Yep, thirteen pages of back and forth about 8 interlopers (give or take).

It might be that wide on the 2400 pint scale

It would be out of 2400, but the letter above says the IB average was 2100 in 2017, so PP is suggesting the non-magnet students and an average score of 1400/2400. Other MCPS data says the average school wide SAT for RM in 2016 was 1779 with 387 seniors tested. Different years so can't actually calculate but the trend wouldn't support PP's claim. E.g., if there are about 3 times as many non magnet students tested, and PP's claim is correct, the 2017 school average would be
(2100*1 +1400*3)/4 = 1575, a 200 point drop from the 2016 school average. I call BS and that PP hasn't resurfaced.

That's really sad. The same profile (which was replaced by above profile) for the class of 2016 used to show 2250 avg. Dropped 140 pts between classes of 2016/2017.

RMIB SAT scores used to be very close to Blair Magnet. They now seem lower.
RMIB SAT scores for the Class of 2017
Critical Reading/Verbal 720
Mathematics 720
Writing 660 (this is surprisingly low)

Blair Magnet class of 2017
Critical Reading/Verbal 747
Mathematics 779
Writing 727

Yes, Blair SMAC, RMIB, and TJ all had close to 2250 average (give or take a few points).

Except that RMIB had 2100 and Blair had 2253. This is a big difference especially when you consider they used to always have similar scores. The RMIB writing score is also lower than it should be considering it is a program that stresses writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that the comprehensive kids in the IB classes are low-performing?

The average SAT score difference between IB kids and non IB kids is probably more than 700 pts. I think it's a fair thing to say. And before you ask for proof, you know as well as I do the MCPS doesn't publish that information but you can estimate - you know the number of IB kids, you know the number of RM kids (including IB), you know SAT avg for entire class, and you know avg SAT for IB kids. If you have at least HS education, you can calculate avg SAT for non IB kids. Your HW for tonight.

Good god.. How is that possible?? Gap between RMIB and regular kids that wide?

It's not, that PP is a nut.

To OP's point, here's what appears to be the explainer sheet that was sent with IB transcripts last year: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/aboutys/2016-17%20IB_Insert.pdf
It says there were 133 IB degree candidates in 2016 (118 successful) and given that 125 freshmen are admitted by application that means at least 8 local students joined (plus whatever it takes to replace attrition from the magnet). The back door may exist but it's not so significant. Yep, thirteen pages of back and forth about 8 interlopers (give or take).

It might be that wide on the 2400 pint scale

It would be out of 2400, but the letter above says the IB average was 2100 in 2017, so PP is suggesting the non-magnet students and an average score of 1400/2400. Other MCPS data says the average school wide SAT for RM in 2016 was 1779 with 387 seniors tested. Different years so can't actually calculate but the trend wouldn't support PP's claim. E.g., if there are about 3 times as many non magnet students tested, and PP's claim is correct, the 2017 school average would be
(2100*1 +1400*3)/4 = 1575, a 200 point drop from the 2016 school average. I call BS and that PP hasn't resurfaced.

That's really sad. The same profile (which was replaced by above profile) for the class of 2016 used to show 2250 avg. Dropped 140 pts between classes of 2016/2017.

RMIB SAT scores used to be very close to Blair Magnet. They now seem lower.
RMIB SAT scores for the Class of 2017
Critical Reading/Verbal 720
Mathematics 720
Writing 660 (this is surprisingly low)

Blair Magnet class of 2017
Critical Reading/Verbal 747
Mathematics 779
Writing 727

Yes, Blair SMAC, RMIB, and TJ all had close to 2250 average (give or take a few points).

Except that RMIB had 2100 and Blair had 2253. This is a big difference especially when you consider they used to always have similar scores. The RMIB writing score is also lower than it should be considering it is a program that stresses writing.

I think you misread my post. I said "had" as in "used to"... I was expressing my surprise (badly it appears) that how much it has dropped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please try to get a good understanding of what magnet education mean. Magnet math, or magnet science follows the same math and same science curriculum, but different in depth and material. Anatomy & Physiology in HS and Anatomy & Physiology in Med school are not the same. IB is a philosophy. A IB Biology class can be taught many different way to different level of audience. Its not the same pace and not the same material. Comprehensive kids are not "ruining" it for the application program kids. Its is the adults mistake to think one of these two group do not deserve to be taught at their level. It is impossible to prove what you are asking without a controlled experiments over a very long period and that kind of experiment is not fair to either set of kids.

IB is not a philosophy. The IB diploma program is a program with a curriculum, assessment, and exams. If your child is in IB at Richard Montgomery, I'm surprised that you don't know that.

http://www.ibo.org/programmes/diploma-programme/

Another question I have: how many of these slow-witted undeserving interlopers are there actually in the IB classes at RM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that the comprehensive kids in the IB classes are low-performing?

The average SAT score difference between IB kids and non IB kids is probably more than 700 pts. I think it's a fair thing to say. And before you ask for proof, you know as well as I do the MCPS doesn't publish that information but you can estimate - you know the number of IB kids, you know the number of RM kids (including IB), you know SAT avg for entire class, and you know avg SAT for IB kids. If you have at least HS education, you can calculate avg SAT for non IB kids. Your HW for tonight.

Good god.. How is that possible?? Gap between RMIB and regular kids that wide?

It's not, that PP is a nut.

To OP's point, here's what appears to be the explainer sheet that was sent with IB transcripts last year: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/aboutys/2016-17%20IB_Insert.pdf
It says there were 133 IB degree candidates in 2016 (118 successful) and given that 125 freshmen are admitted by application that means at least 8 local students joined (plus whatever it takes to replace attrition from the magnet). The back door may exist but it's not so significant. Yep, thirteen pages of back and forth about 8 interlopers (give or take).

It might be that wide on the 2400 pint scale

It would be out of 2400, but the letter above says the IB average was 2100 in 2017, so PP is suggesting the non-magnet students and an average score of 1400/2400. Other MCPS data says the average school wide SAT for RM in 2016 was 1779 with 387 seniors tested. Different years so can't actually calculate but the trend wouldn't support PP's claim. E.g., if there are about 3 times as many non magnet students tested, and PP's claim is correct, the 2017 school average would be
(2100*1 +1400*3)/4 = 1575, a 200 point drop from the 2016 school average. I call BS and that PP hasn't resurfaced.

That's really sad. The same profile (which was replaced by above profile) for the class of 2016 used to show 2250 avg. Dropped 140 pts between classes of 2016/2017.

Even if you assume 2250 it's slightly less than 500 points difference vs. 700.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that the comprehensive kids in the IB classes are low-performing?

The average SAT score difference between IB kids and non IB kids is probably more than 700 pts. I think it's a fair thing to say. And before you ask for proof, you know as well as I do the MCPS doesn't publish that information but you can estimate - you know the number of IB kids, you know the number of RM kids (including IB), you know SAT avg for entire class, and you know avg SAT for IB kids. If you have at least HS education, you can calculate avg SAT for non IB kids. Your HW for tonight.

Good god.. How is that possible?? Gap between RMIB and regular kids that wide?

It's not, that PP is a nut.

To OP's point, here's what appears to be the explainer sheet that was sent with IB transcripts last year: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/aboutys/2016-17%20IB_Insert.pdf
It says there were 133 IB degree candidates in 2016 (118 successful) and given that 125 freshmen are admitted by application that means at least 8 local students joined (plus whatever it takes to replace attrition from the magnet). The back door may exist but it's not so significant. Yep, thirteen pages of back and forth about 8 interlopers (give or take).

It might be that wide on the 2400 pint scale

It would be out of 2400, but the letter above says the IB average was 2100 in 2017, so PP is suggesting the non-magnet students and an average score of 1400/2400. Other MCPS data says the average school wide SAT for RM in 2016 was 1779 with 387 seniors tested. Different years so can't actually calculate but the trend wouldn't support PP's claim. E.g., if there are about 3 times as many non magnet students tested, and PP's claim is correct, the 2017 school average would be
(2100*1 +1400*3)/4 = 1575, a 200 point drop from the 2016 school average. I call BS and that PP hasn't resurfaced.

That's really sad. The same profile (which was replaced by above profile) for the class of 2016 used to show 2250 avg. Dropped 140 pts between classes of 2016/2017.

Even if you assume 2250 it's slightly less than 500 points difference vs. 700.

I think your math is off. So, let's say for the sake of argument, your numbers are correct.

397 include IB kids (133kids) so non IB kids are 254 kids
133 kids have avg of 2250
avg of total 397 kids is 1779
which means avg for non IB kids is 1532

2250-1152 = 718 pts.

[Anonymous]

It looks like there were 133 diploma candidates in 2016 and 161 in 2017 so there have added at least a classroom full of kids to the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like there were 133 diploma candidates in 2016 and 161 in 2017 so there have added at least a classroom full of kids to the program.

So in 2016 there were 125 program seniors and 8 comprehensive seniors(assuming no attrition), and in 2017 there are 125 program seniors and 36 comprehensive seniors (assuming no attrition). Thank you for the numbers.

Now, what is the evidence that the teachers aren't covering all of the material, or are covering it less well, due to 1/5 of the class being seniors who didn't start with the RMIB program in 9th grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like there were 133 diploma candidates in 2016 and 161 in 2017 so there have added at least a classroom full of kids to the program.

So in 2016 there were 125 program seniors and 8 comprehensive seniors(assuming no attrition), and in 2017 there are 125 program seniors and 36 comprehensive seniors (assuming no attrition). Thank you for the numbers.

Now, what is the evidence that the teachers aren't covering all of the material, or are covering it less well, due to 1/5 of the class being seniors who didn't start with the RMIB program in 9th grade?

Wow! Thanks for the information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like there were 133 diploma candidates in 2016 and 161 in 2017 so there have added at least a classroom full of kids to the program.

So in 2016 there were 125 program seniors and 8 comprehensive seniors(assuming no attrition), and in 2017 there are 125 program seniors and 36 comprehensive seniors (assuming no attrition). Thank you for the numbers.

Now, what is the evidence that the teachers aren't covering all of the material, or are covering it less well, due to 1/5 of the class being seniors who didn't start with the RMIB program in 9th grade?

You have been trying to unnecessarily argumentative that if someone cannot prove the degradation of rigor/academic inferiority of this practice it is okay for the school to materially change the county owned magnet program in spite of what has been published about the program. Immediate impact would be hard to prove, however this is a slippery slope for RM and county. If non-RM parents catch on to this discrepancy, there could be lawsuit based on this.

I can see why this practice is supported by RM-cluster parents, however, it is wrong to deceive non-RM cluster parents this way.

If RM thinks IBO requirement conflicts with the magnet promise of MCPS, RM must request MCPS to move the magnet somewhere else. Or stay tru to what is being advertised to county students.

[Anonymous]

You don't mean move the magnet because every mcps school would have the same conflict. You mean eliminate the magnet. Would that really improve things? Also consider that extra kids allow more in classes and create more scheduling options for all kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like there were 133 diploma candidates in 2016 and 161 in 2017 so there have added at least a classroom full of kids to the program.

So in 2016 there were 125 program seniors and 8 comprehensive seniors(assuming no attrition), and in 2017 there are 125 program seniors and 36 comprehensive seniors (assuming no attrition). Thank you for the numbers.

Now, what is the evidence that the teachers aren't covering all of the material, or are covering it less well, due to 1/5 of the class being seniors who didn't start with the RMIB program in 9th grade?

You have been trying to unnecessarily argumentative that if someone cannot prove the degradation of rigor/academic inferiority of this practice it is okay for the school to materially change the county owned magnet program in spite of what has been published about the program. Immediate impact would be hard to prove, however this is a slippery slope for RM and county. If non-RM parents catch on to this discrepancy, there could be lawsuit based on this.

I can see why this practice is supported by RM-cluster parents, however, it is wrong to deceive non-RM cluster parents this way.

If RM thinks IBO requirement conflicts with the magnet promise of MCPS, RM must request MCPS to move the magnet somewhere else. Or stay tru to what is being advertised to county students.

Necessarily argumentative, not unnecessarily. Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean that it ACTUALLY DOES happen. (For example, I could win the lottery. But I haven't actually done so.)

Also, while anybody can sue about anything, I think it's highly unlikely that anybody's lawsuit alleging that nobody told them that some regular RM kids would be allowed into RMIB classes would be successful. IANAL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that the comprehensive kids in the IB classes are low-performing?

The average SAT score difference between IB kids and non IB kids is probably more than 700 pts. I think it's a fair thing to say. And before you ask for proof, you know as well as I do the MCPS doesn't publish that information but you can estimate - you know the number of IB kids, you know the number of RM kids (including IB), you know SAT avg for entire class, and you know avg SAT for IB kids. If you have at least HS education, you can calculate avg SAT for non IB kids. Your HW for tonight.

Good god.. How is that possible?? Gap between RMIB and regular kids that wide?

It's not, that PP is a nut.

To OP's point, here's what appears to be the explainer sheet that was sent with IB transcripts last year: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/rmhs/aboutys/2016-17%20IB_Insert.pdf
It says there were 133 IB degree candidates in 2016 (118 successful) and given that 125 freshmen are admitted by application that means at least 8 local students joined (plus whatever it takes to replace attrition from the magnet). The back door may exist but it's not so significant. Yep, thirteen pages of back and forth about 8 interlopers (give or take).

It might be that wide on the 2400 pint scale

It would be out of 2400, but the letter above says the IB average was 2100 in 2017, so PP is suggesting the non-magnet students and an average score of 1400/2400. Other MCPS data says the average school wide SAT for RM in 2016 was 1779 with 387 seniors tested. Different years so can't actually calculate but the trend wouldn't support PP's claim. E.g., if there are about 3 times as many non magnet students tested, and PP's claim is correct, the 2017 school average would be
(2100*1 +1400*3)/4 = 1575, a 200 point drop from the 2016 school average. I call BS and that PP hasn't resurfaced.

That's really sad. The same profile (which was replaced by above profile) for the class of 2016 used to show 2250 avg. Dropped 140 pts between classes of 2016/2017.

Even if you assume 2250 it's slightly less than 500 points difference vs. 700.

I think your math is off. So, let's say for the sake of argument, your numbers are correct.

397 include IB kids (133kids) so non IB kids are 254 kids
133 kids have avg of 2250
avg of total 397 kids is 1779
which means avg for non IB kids is 1532

2250-1152 = 718 pts.

Yes, you're correct, I miscalculated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't mean move the magnet because every mcps school would have the same conflict. You mean eliminate the magnet. Would that really improve things? Also consider that extra kids allow more in classes and create more scheduling options for all kids.

I do not believe every mcps will have the same conflict. The rules of engagement changed recently by RM, so it was fine for some 25 years or so.

About Eliminating magnet, if the magnet education is not being provided, to students in need, with integrity then it is probably not to far fetched to think over time it will be eliminated by default.

[Anonymous]

I'm still waiting for evidence of harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like there were 133 diploma candidates in 2016 and 161 in 2017 so there have added at least a classroom full of kids to the program.

So in 2016 there were 125 program seniors and 8 comprehensive seniors(assuming no attrition), and in 2017 there are 125 program seniors and 36 comprehensive seniors (assuming no attrition). Thank you for the numbers.

Now, what is the evidence that the teachers aren't covering all of the material, or are covering it less well, due to 1/5 of the class being seniors who didn't start with the RMIB program in 9th grade?

You have been trying to unnecessarily argumentative that if someone cannot prove the degradation of rigor/academic inferiority of this practice it is okay for the school to materially change the county owned magnet program in spite of what has been published about the program. Immediate impact would be hard to prove, however this is a slippery slope for RM and county. If non-RM parents catch on to this discrepancy, there could be lawsuit based on this.

I can see why this practice is supported by RM-cluster parents, however, it is wrong to deceive non-RM cluster parents this way.

If RM thinks IBO requirement conflicts with the magnet promise of MCPS, RM must request MCPS to move the magnet somewhere else. Or stay tru to what is being advertised to county students.

Necessarily argumentative, not unnecessarily. Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean that it ACTUALLY DOES happen. (For example, I could win the lottery. But I haven't actually done so.)

Also, while anybody can sue about anything, I think it's highly unlikely that anybody's lawsuit alleging that nobody told them that some regular RM kids would be allowed into RMIB classes would be successful. IANAL.

Nope you are arguing for arguments sake.

When you buy "whole milk" for your toddler and the grocer actually sells you 2% milk, can you really prove your kids brain development was hindered by years of drinking 2% milk instead of whole milk that you believed to have been buying. A systemic downgrade is not discernible from year to year. It is only perceived over many years. It is hard to prove - unless all parties are game for the experiment. In this case, school and RM will not be willing to test the theory. In any case, students should not be put into any experiment. They should be provided authentic magnet education and currently they are not. This is bad faith practice by the county and school. Dishonesty in any form is still dishonesty.