Middle school magnets - criteria-based
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
25 are set aside for those in the TPMS catchment, so there is something of a separate lottery for them (same criteria, different pool). I think the ratio of seats to total MS population ends up being about 3 times greater. |
Anonymous
But if you think long-term, bringing extra supports to kids who NEED them has an enormous impact. Better ROI than enriching already smart kids, especially at the middle school level. Inasmuch as the latter adds extra stress, I might argue the value is diminished. |
Anonymous
As a society, we need many more to be highly-fluent in Math, both better to ensure personal capability and better to provide a workforce that can handle modern challenges. That's going to require interested students, and enrichment/acceleration prior to High School is essential to maintaining that interest. While the impact of supporting measures for those needing them also is high, and perhaps even higher, I would argue that the cost to provide those supports is, itself, disproportionately higher, especially on a per-pupil basis, than affording differentiated instruction to those demonstrating greater ability. The answer should be to ensure both to the degree that the system can do so without greatly impairing the addressing of "mainstream" educational need. There is a limit to the overall benefit achieved from robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the follow-up is to ensure that there is more allotted to pay each. And that raises the issue of different "mainstreams" across schools. It is clear from many DCUM discussions that some schools' mainstream/default is acceleration. That becomes a huge equity issue if schools where that is not the case (typically low-SES) are not differentially funded to allow for the greater variation within their cohort. If we had town-based school districts in this state, that might not not be feasible (even if societally just); however, in Maryland, school districts are county-based, and the onus is on the county's school system to provide equitable educational services to all. Of course, one could reduce that to a one-size-fits-all approach, with no differentiation, whether support or enrichment. Casting aside the clear deficits that would present to our community, it would ignore, again, the need-oriented law and policy that mandate both. That said, enrichment/acceleration should be about the pull of addressing need (and properly identifying it in the first place), not a demanding and resisted push, whether by the school or by families. There certainly are those that create stress via the latter, but there are a very large number who make up the former, with effect felt especially prior to High School. |
Anonymous
Most of the choice and special programs are not that great. We left the one we went to. It was not good at all. |
Anonymous
| DC accepted to Takoma Park. Fall MAP-M 235 |
Anonymous
| DC in the pool, but not offered a spot, for math/science with Fall MAP-M 236. We are in the lowest-FARMS school category. |
Anonymous
Congrats! My DC is in 8th grade at TPMS and has loved the experience |
Anonymous
What makes a more rigorous curriculum more expensive? |
Anonymous
Paying for two curricula, if a second were required to allow for adequate need-based differentiation at local schools, would be a start. I think the magnets create their own, and it may not be feasible to port that over to local programs. This might be for a variety of reasons, but coming to mind is staffing, which may not be flexible enough to account for the variability seen year-to-year for local school populations in need. That, itself, along with the greatly increased population since magnets were introduced, suggests more magnets would be a large part of any solution. Staffing, then, and associated training, would be it's own cost. There isn't enough in the budget, now, to cover proper teacher training for GT, along with a lot of other trainings that MCPS essentially hopes teachers will take on their own time. Teachers capable of providing the more rigorous instruction may require higher salaries to attract and keep. There would also be a need to augment central staffing to support a larger program; again, there isn't enough, now, to provide adequate support/oversight for the existing implementations. There might be capital costs to allocate enough classroom space. Divided local programming almost certainly means less optimal use of space vs. one-size-fits-all. I'm sure there are other costs not listed. |
Anonymous
Fortunately, the curriculum already exists and there are plenty of qualified teachers. The only real cost is busing. |
Anonymous
| DC in lottery but not offered seat at TPMS. Fall MAP-M was 264, straight As. Moderate to High FARMS school. |
Anonymous
Sorry to hear that. I know it probably seems unfair, but it is just a lottery of the upper 15% for what amounts to a few hundred seats. |
Anonymous
Same here. 270 Map M got nothing |
Anonymous
We felt the opposite. One of my kids was in CES and the other at the MS STEM magent. We felt they were both amazing and vastly better than the alternative. |
Anonymous
Ha! And self-actualization stands completely on its own, requiring not a drop of sustenance from others, AMIRITE? |