Is it good or bad that MCPS placed Magnet schools in the lowest performing schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.

If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.
P
If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter and the county disagrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.
P
If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter and the county disagrees.

So the answer is that there isn't a difference, hence they use "holistic" approach for admission criteria, or "cohort" because otherwise, no matter if they cast a wider net, those kids wouldn't be able to get in otherwise. If this is not true, then answer the question. I bolded it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AS students are succeeding because of their home life and their parents. That kind of parenting will never happen in AA and HI households. They have too many social, mental and cultural issues that bring them down, putting energy towards educating their kids is low down on their priorities. They are struggling as family units on very basic issues.

MCPS can give them everything except change their homelife and switch out their parents. They will always be at a disadvantage. It is the effect of historic slavery and breakdown of family units for generations. We cannot understand this level of dysfunction. The difference between AA blacks and African blacks who have immigrated here is of day and night.

I have a bunch of black friends that would be very upset to hear the way you describe them and their family lives. At least the lower middle class background that I came from exposed me to black people and true friendships, don't paint them all with your racist brush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly, they're not publishing this data because some blithering moron would go on DCUM and whine about how their kid's spot was taken by a URM with a 0.0001 lower test score despite the decision being more nuanced.

BINGO. The same folks who have been saying for years that East County schools are hellholes are now going to dither over .0002 percentage points between their well-prepared and well-supported kid and a kid who didn't have their child's advantages.

I think it is even more moronic to support secrecy in a taxpayer funded organization on the basis that if that data is published some moron would whine about something stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly, they're not publishing this data because some blithering moron would go on DCUM and whine about how their kid's spot was taken by a URM with a 0.0001 lower test score despite the decision being more nuanced.

BINGO. The same folks who have been saying for years that East County schools are hellholes are now going to dither over .0002 percentage points between their well-prepared and well-supported kid and a kid who didn't have their child's advantages.

Priceless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

They did use tests in the downcounty magnet MS admissions process. Who told you that they didn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AS students are succeeding because of their home life and their parents. That kind of parenting will never happen in AA and HI households. They have too many social, mental and cultural issues that bring them down, putting energy towards educating their kids is low down on their priorities. They are struggling as family units on very basic issues.

MCPS can give them everything except change their homelife and switch out their parents. They will always be at a disadvantage. It is the effect of historic slavery and breakdown of family units for generations. We cannot understand this level of dysfunction. The difference between AA blacks and African blacks who have immigrated here is of day and night.

I have a bunch of black friends that would be very upset to hear the way you describe them and their family lives. At least the lower middle class background that I came from exposed me to black people and true friendships, don't paint them all with your racist brush.

I have a bunch of black friends who are recent immigrants from Africa. This has been their assessment and guilt as well of why AA in this country are unable to succeed. Those who are middle class and have educated, married parents are in a different ballpark then most other blacks who face all kinds of issues. And these are mostly people who are recent immigrants. They have had intact families for generations. Opinions do not matter, reality matters. There is nothing racist about it. The secret sauce in Asian-American success is intact families. Yes, maybe it is generalizations, but these generalizations holds true for majority of these racial groups. Every race has dysfunctional families but Blacks have a proportional larger numbers of them. That is one of the reasons that they are not "privileged",

Every single nation in this world has a rich class and a poor class. US has a poor class comprising of a higher proportion of Blacks. Many have blamed it on lower intelligence of blacks as a race, which is bunkum. High performing recent African immigrants have proved that there is nothing wroing with the intelligence of Black people. It is the family units that are still not fully functional because of years of slavery and degradation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly, they're not publishing this data because some blithering moron would go on DCUM and whine about how their kid's spot was taken by a URM with a 0.0001 lower test score despite the decision being more nuanced.

BINGO. The same folks who have been saying for years that East County schools are hellholes are now going to dither over .0002 percentage points between their well-prepared and well-supported kid and a kid who didn't have their child's advantages.

0.0002 percentage points or 40?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

Time for someone to sue to put an end to this nonsense.
You can’t actually take public funds and act like you’re running your own private program.



The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.
P
If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter and the county disagrees.

So the answer is that there isn't a difference, hence they use "holistic" approach for admission criteria, or "cohort" because otherwise, no matter if they cast a wider net, those kids wouldn't be able to get in otherwise. If this is not true, then answer the question. I bolded it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AS students are succeeding because of their home life and their parents. That kind of parenting will never happen in AA and HI households. They have too many social, mental and cultural issues that bring them down, putting energy towards educating their kids is low down on their priorities. They are struggling as family units on very basic issues.

MCPS can give them everything except change their homelife and switch out their parents. They will always be at a disadvantage. It is the effect of historic slavery and breakdown of family units for generations. We cannot understand this level of dysfunction. The difference between AA blacks and African blacks who have immigrated here is of day and night.

I have a bunch of black friends that would be very upset to hear the way you describe them and their family lives. At least the lower middle class background that I came from exposed me to black people and true friendships, don't paint them all with your racist brush.

I have a bunch of black friends who are recent immigrants from Africa. This has been their assessment and guilt as well of why AA in this country are unable to succeed. Those who are middle class and have educated, married parents are in a different ballpark then most other blacks who face all kinds of issues. And these are mostly people who are recent immigrants. They have had intact families for generations. Opinions do not matter, reality matters. There is nothing racist about it. The secret sauce in Asian-American success is intact families. Yes, maybe it is generalizations, but these generalizations holds true for majority of these racial groups. Every race has dysfunctional families but Blacks have a proportional larger numbers of them. That is one of the reasons that they are not "privileged",

Every single nation in this world has a rich class and a poor class. US has a poor class comprising of a higher proportion of Blacks. Many have blamed it on lower intelligence of blacks as a race, which is bunkum. High performing recent African immigrants have proved that there is nothing wroing with the intelligence of Black people. It is the family units that are still not fully functional because of years of slavery and degradation.

You just made that up in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.
P
If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter and the county disagrees.

Time for someone to sue ‘the county’ to put an end to this nonsense.
You can’t actually take public funds and act like you’re running your own private program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.
P
If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter and the county disagrees.

Time for someone to sue ‘the county’ to put an end to this nonsense.
You can’t actually take public funds and act like you’re running your own private program.

still here tiger mom
plenty of other less liberal progressive counties to move to
just go private or homeschool if your snowflake isn't going to be able to make it without a seat at a magnet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this straight, MCPS isn't allowing top scoring students to the magnets' schools because there are too many top scoring students in their home schools? So then what? Those top scoring students just spin their wheels in C2.0 and never get really challenged like they could have in a HGC, CES or magnet program?

And some other parents are happy about this because now their lesser top scoring kid can attend?

But that doesn't solve the problem of what the school district is doing with or for the original top set of kids they now are shutting out of the top programs.

And to top it off they are no longer publishing the median or distribution of admit scores?

Actually, that's not it at all. The new system does a better job identifying more qualified students. It also made it harder for parents to game the system by 1) identifying 5X the number of candidates than in prior years 2) looking at a broader range of criteria than one test. This didn't go over well with the people who had been gaming the system.

So if test scores aren't a good indicator of being high achieving then why does MCPS use PARCC and MAP scores as the basis for the opposite - identifying low achieving students, and then use this as the basis for closing the achievement gap? Why not look at teacher recommendations, or whatever else criteria they are using to indicate whether a student is "high achieving"?

If it's ok for them to use tests to help them identify low achieving students to give them extra help, why is it not ok for them to use tests to identify very high achieving kids?

This has already been expalined 1000 times, and if your reading comprehension is any indication of your child's, it's no wonder they're not in a magnet program.

Well, my DC didn't bother applying to MS magnet because it was too far, but I have a younger one coming up, and this isn't about just my child. It's about how MCPS treats all the high achieving students.

So, ok, if I'm that stupid, explain to me why it's ok for MCPS to use test scores to gauge the achievement gap, but it's not ok for them to use the same test scores to gauge who is really high achieving? If it's good for one side, why not the other?

You say one test doesn't reflect high achieving. Then one test shouldn't reflect low achieving either, right? That actually seems logical to my simple mind, but ok, I'm too simple to grasp this convoluted logic you are using, so then explain it to me like I'm a non magnet 6th grader.

The exact criteria were laid out a few pages back and were taken directly from the MCPS website. You need to do your own legwork because I don't care enough to reread through 5+ pages to get you the exact info, but It isn't what you're saying and is pretty reasonable stuff.

I've read the criteria, and "cohort" was one of them, which is BS when it comes to who qualifies for an academic program.

But, you still didn't answer my question why it's ok to use test scores to identify low achieving kids, but not high achieving ones.
P
If a test score isn't a good measure of identifying high achieving kids, then why is it a good measure for identifying low achieving kids?

Fortunately your opinion doesn’t matter and the county disagrees.

Time for someone to sue ‘the county’ to put an end to this nonsense.
You can’t actually take public funds and act like you’re running your own private program.

still here tiger mom
plenty of other less liberal progressive counties to move to
just go private or homeschool if your snowflake isn't going to be able to make it without a seat at a magnet

seriously -- these people show no resilience at all. I wonder what would happen if they had to deal with real hardship.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
seriously -- these people show no resilience at all. I wonder what would happen if they had to deal with real hardship.....

Try immigrating to a country with no education, not knowing the language and raising four little children, then having those kids become educated with good paying jobs. Then report back on dealing with "real hardships".

--signed an Asian immigrant whose family fits that bill