TPMS MAP-M scores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Coming into MCPS from outside, I guess I just don't get why there aren't enough CES classes and MS / HS Magnets for every kid who qualifies. We have buildings, we have teachers, we have a proven curriculum, clearly we have loads of qualified kids who aren't being served, so why not just shift some regular classrooms into gifted classrooms? Add more Magnet schools and distribute them geographically so that kids who are accepted don't decline because of transportation issues? Why choose the number of kids who can participate based on the number of assigned seats, rather than decide the number of seats/classrooms based on the number of qualified kids?

Sorry, but this isn't Harvard. It's public K-12 education. Doesn't MCPS owe every gifted student a free and appropriate education, ethically if not legally?

In some ways, this is what MCPS is trying to do. They are expanding the "local centers" and adding accelerated programming at the middle school level. However, if you track DCUM you will see that folks are resisting those efforts, claiming that the curriculum is being "watered down" by the addition of additional kids/classes.

Honestly, I think MCPS can't win. If they keep the previous system, in which 1-2% of kids were able to access the CES and magnet middle school programs, they will be criticized for gatekeeping. If they expand the programs to meet the needs of more like 10% of kids, they are accused of sabotaging the magnets in the name of social justice.

It seems like the problem is deciding a priori that 2% or 10% is the correct number of seats to set aside. The general consensus, from the district, the schools, and the parents, seems to be that there just aren't enough seats to admit all qualified students. This is true even before hashing out the definition of "qualified," which is always going to be a sticking point, especially for kids on the border. Also, the "accelerated programs" at the middle schools are not remotely comparable to the programs at the magnets, so I can see how it's a pretty weak argument to claim that they are a substitute for a student who might have previously qualified for a magnet.

Again, my kids haven't been through the process because we came in from outside, but this is how it looks to me.

For someone who claims to have no skin in the game, you seem pretty sure that the accelerated middle school classes are "not remotely comparable" to the middle school magnets. This is the first year that those classes have even existed - maybe we can slow our roll for a half second before declaring them an unmitigated failure?

I'm not saying they're a failure, just that they're not comparable. The magnets, as I understand them, have a totally different curriculum. So offering one advanced class in a subject, regardless of how good it is or how it's taught, is by definition not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, that doesn't say that MCPS must provide a free and appropriate education. Just that MCPS must provide different, additional services. Which MCPS does.

What, in your mind, is the difference between "appropriate education" vs. "different, additional services"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, that doesn't say that MCPS must provide a free and appropriate education. Just that MCPS must provide different, additional services. Which MCPS does.

Also, here is the additional language from that section that is being considered by the MDBoE today:

"03 Programs and Services.

A. Each school system shall provide different services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program from an annually reviewed Maryland State Department of Education approved list of programs and services in order to develop the gifted and talented student’s potential. Appropriately differentiated, evidenced-based programs and services shall accelerate, extend, or enrich instructional content, strategies, and products to demonstrate and apply learning.

B. (text unchanged)

C. Each school system shall [consider implementing] implement programs and services for gifted and talented students that:

(1) Provide a continuum of appropriately differentiated curriculum and evidence-based academic programs and services in grades PreK—12 during the regular school day for identified gifted and talented students.

(2)—(3) (text unchanged)"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, that doesn't say that MCPS must provide a free and appropriate education. Just that MCPS must provide different, additional services. Which MCPS does.

What, in your mind, is the difference between "appropriate education" vs. "different, additional services"?

"Different, additional services" measures output - MCPS must have provide programs or different curricula or whatever.

"Appropriate education" measures outcome - did what MCPS is required to provide, provide an appropriate education to the student?

Federal regulation (section 504) requires a school district to provide a free and appropriate education to each qualified person with a disability who is in the school district’s jurisdiction. This state regulation does not require a school district to provide a free and appropriate education to each qualified person who is gifted who is in the school district's jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about all the kids who had MAP-M scores that high and did NOT get in. Did they also not deserve to be there?

Possibly - the map is just one of several data points used to evaluate an applicant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to let all those parents know who criticized the magnet selection not being fair as many high performing kids from CES centers did not get selected, raw scores were requested, data were shared, and law suits were threatened, MAP- M scores of most of selected kids range from 250-294. Math counts try outs are competitive and still have high flyers from sixth grade though the selection criteria of these sixth graders was based on cogat and not traditional way, science class is serious business with lots of hands raised to answer teacher’s questions on a specific topic discussion. I don’t see these kids being any less smart (than those who did not make it to the magnet and parents cried foul).
Just sharing my observations as I see similar threads popping up about this year’s selection to middle school magnets.

That's great to hear!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about all the kids who had MAP-M scores that high and did NOT get in. Did they also not deserve to be there?

This is the heart of the complaint. That MCPS uses murky selection tools to select a certain profile from the pool of qualified students. IE, prioritizing students from lower-income areas in a bid to reduce specific ethnic gaps. Now whether that complaint will hold up as the cohorts are selected year after year, remains to be seen.

Oddly, nobody on DCUM ever asked that question when MCPS used the previous murky selection process. It only became a concern when affluent west-county parents became worried that their children were being passed over for those other children, over there, who must be less deserving.

PP you replied to. I've been following this process closely for many years. The reason no one complained before is because so few families actually KNEW about it, because parents had to apply for their kids, so first they had to be informed enough, and most weren't. Sad, isn't it? I actually prefer the new process, which automatically tests kids without waiting for their parents to send an application. But the new process has this "peer cohort" criteria that was deliberately added to allow MCPS to cherry-pick candidates in an effort to reduce what they perceive to be the achievement gap. I have grave reservations that it can be addressed in that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP you replied to. I've been following this process closely for many years. The reason no one complained before is because so few families actually KNEW about it, because parents had to apply for their kids, so first they had to be informed enough, and most weren't. Sad, isn't it? I actually prefer the new process, which automatically tests kids without waiting for their parents to send an application. But the new process has this "peer cohort" criteria that was deliberately added to allow MCPS to cherry-pick candidates in an effort to reduce what they perceive to be the achievement gap. I have grave reservations that it can be addressed in that way.

It was deliberately added so that kids whose needs can't be met at the home middle school, because there's no peer cohort, can go to the magnet school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about all the kids who had MAP-M scores that high and did NOT get in. Did they also not deserve to be there?

This is the heart of the complaint. That MCPS uses murky selection tools to select a certain profile from the pool of qualified students. IE, prioritizing students from lower-income areas in a bid to reduce specific ethnic gaps. Now whether that complaint will hold up as the cohorts are selected year after year, remains to be seen.

Oddly, nobody on DCUM ever asked that question when MCPS used the previous murky selection process. It only became a concern when affluent west-county parents became worried that their children were being passed over for those other children, over there, who must be less deserving.

PP you replied to. I've been following this process closely for many years. The reason no one complained before is because so few families actually KNEW about it, because parents had to apply for their kids, so first they had to be informed enough, and most weren't. Sad, isn't it? I actually prefer the new process, which automatically tests kids without waiting for their parents to send an application. But the new process has this "peer cohort" criteria that was deliberately added to allow MCPS to cherry-pick candidates in an effort to reduce what they perceive to be the achievement gap. I have grave reservations that it can be addressed in that way.

If your child has never been without a peer cohort AT ALL, then you may not really comprehend how important it is. It isn’t everything, and there is no doubt that what is taught and how are also critical parts of the puzzle. But please don’t think that peer cohort is some in-quotes kind of silliness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP you replied to. I've been following this process closely for many years. The reason no one complained before is because so few families actually KNEW about it, because parents had to apply for their kids, so first they had to be informed enough, and most weren't. Sad, isn't it? I actually prefer the new process, which automatically tests kids without waiting for their parents to send an application. But the new process has this "peer cohort" criteria that was deliberately added to allow MCPS to cherry-pick candidates in an effort to reduce what they perceive to be the achievement gap. I have grave reservations that it can be addressed in that way.

It was deliberately added so that kids whose needs can't be met at the home middle school, because there's no peer cohort, can go to the magnet school.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP you replied to. I've been following this process closely for many years. The reason no one complained before is because so few families actually KNEW about it, because parents had to apply for their kids, so first they had to be informed enough, and most weren't. Sad, isn't it? I actually prefer the new process, which automatically tests kids without waiting for their parents to send an application. But the new process has this "peer cohort" criteria that was deliberately added to allow MCPS to cherry-pick candidates in an effort to reduce what they perceive to be the achievement gap. I have grave reservations that it can be addressed in that way.

It was deliberately added so that kids whose needs can't be met at the home middle school, because there's no peer cohort, can go to the magnet school.

+1

Except that peer cohort is meaningless without an appropriately advanced and enriched curriculum taught by educators experienced with gifted instruction. All three pieces are crucial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except that peer cohort is meaningless without an appropriately advanced and enriched curriculum taught by educators experienced with gifted instruction. All three pieces are crucial.

If you think it's meaningless, then I infer that you've never been without a peer cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that peer cohort is meaningless without an appropriately advanced and enriched curriculum taught by educators experienced with gifted instruction. All three pieces are crucial.

If you think it's meaningless, then I infer that you've never been without a peer cohort.

Socially, a peer cohort is critical. Academically, it’s necessary but not sufficient. Even the brightest group of kids can’t teach themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP you replied to. I've been following this process closely for many years. The reason no one complained before is because so few families actually KNEW about it, because parents had to apply for their kids, so first they had to be informed enough, and most weren't. Sad, isn't it? I actually prefer the new process, which automatically tests kids without waiting for their parents to send an application. But the new process has this "peer cohort" criteria that was deliberately added to allow MCPS to cherry-pick candidates in an effort to reduce what they perceive to be the achievement gap. I have grave reservations that it can be addressed in that way.

It was deliberately added so that kids whose needs can't be met at the home middle school, because there's no peer cohort, can go to the magnet school.

What if they went with top X percent overall, plus top X percent in each school? That would hit the kids without a peer cohort without penalizing kids at high performing schools. Of course, you still have to decide what X is and how you measure it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that peer cohort is meaningless without an appropriately advanced and enriched curriculum taught by educators experienced with gifted instruction. All three pieces are crucial.

If you think it's meaningless, then I infer that you've never been without a peer cohort.

Socially, a peer cohort is critical. Academically, it’s necessary but not sufficient. Even the brightest group of kids can’t teach themselves.

In other words, it isn't meaningless.