Please sign this petition to continue countywide magnets

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

People do understand and you are being obnoxious. More kids deserve more opportunities, especially those outside the W schools and BCC. Don't expect support if its a limited program as then most of us don't care. Many of our kids can handle it but we don't choose it because of location, distance, etc.

Then you don't need to split up Blair, do you? You can tell your principal to offer the classes that the kids are the school can handle.

No one is splitting up Blair. We have told our principal to offer the classes and they said no. We have written central office, BOE and are told too bad. We don't care what happens at Blair so why would we sign the petition? We're focused on getting our kids what they need which isn't happening. You want us to support your kids, but aren't willing to support ours.

What was the principal's reason for saying no? Probably the same reason the principals at Wootton and Churchill say no to the classes SMACS offers: there aren't enough kids for the cohorts.

No parent at another school is opposed to your school offering better courses.

Where's your thread asking for support for your kids?

Why would I start a thread? We were told no. They said it was funding and they did not want to allocate the resources as they had kids with greater needs. Wootton and Churchill have a huge course offering.

[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.

Regional programs will still have a commute. Picking up kids takes time. Notice that MCPS is refusing to show bus routes for the regional magnets.

Yeah for a lot of kids it’s not about the long commute but any additional commute at all. They just want to stay with their friends at their home high school. And that’s fine if that’s what they want. Taylor is majorly overestimating the appeal that regional magnets will have.

The regional magnets is the only positive out of this

If you think that the regional programs will be magnet programs, you will be disappointed. Central office is throwing this system together on the fly. I don't see anything that indicates MCPS is trying to build on its successes.

[Anonymous]

I could care less as we live in bounds for one of the few empirically good cluster in the county. I know the magnet schools were chosen as they needed a boost so what happen to Poolesville’s attendance or Blair slipping demographics if they stop importing good students in. Are there enough kids to justify a school out there or does Blair slip below Northwood or Kennedy for the worst school in the county? The magnet kids will be fine regardless of where they go, what classes they take or who teaches them. They are the magic sauce not the program. In reality it will just make the strong schools stronger when they lose less top tier students.

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

Yes we get it-above all you don’t want to see anything change.

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

People do understand and you are being obnoxious. More kids deserve more opportunities, especially those outside the W schools and BCC. Don't expect support if its a limited program as then most of us don't care. Many of our kids can handle it but we don't choose it because of location, distance, etc.

+1. The inability of the OP and her petition pals to understand this is surprising. You want to have 100 kids a year just a few high schools and leave out the rest of the county, very few people are going to join your fight against MCPS changing the current system.

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

You are missing the point as your home school has it all. Few people signed as it has no impact on them as there are few seats.

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

The regional model is bizzare. But, more magnets and opportunities for kids on non-w schools is sorely needed

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

Calling people stupid and saying they don’t understand you, because they don’t agree with you and refusing to respond to points people make about concerns with the existing programs makes you a rotten ambassador for your cause.

[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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

The regional model is bizzare. But, more magnets and opportunities for kids on non-w schools is sorely needed

Agreed, and that approach also doesn't need to close down the county wide magnets

[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:

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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

The regional model is bizzare. But, more magnets and opportunities for kids on non-w schools is sorely needed

Agreed, and that approach also doesn't need to close down the county wide magnets

They are closing them to offer more magnets. That’s good. Having a program serve a few hundred kids while many others go without is not reasonable.

[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:

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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

The regional model is bizzare. But, more magnets and opportunities for kids on non-w schools is sorely needed

Agreed, and that approach also doesn't need to close down the county wide magnets

They are closing them to offer more magnets. That’s good. Having a program serve a few hundred kids while many others go without is not reasonable.

I suspect this a few parents that thought magnets made their otherwise unremarkable school desirable thus helped real estate values. This “oh the special kids” trope is laughable. The Asian kid from churchhill doesn’t need Blair nearly as much as Blair needs them.

[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:

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

Stupid people don't understand arguments. You can't reason with them. This thread and the others are full of data-backed explanations that they can't comprehend. They don't understand intellectual rigor and challenge either; they think only in terms of social status. They can't comprehend the difference between, for example, a basic honors class and a magnet class, because they don't understand either of them.

We do understand. There is also another middle ground between honors and AP and magnet that would provide more access to the 95% and up and not just 99%. Th fact that so many seats in east county were taken by kids from schools that could have their own cohort and higher level classes is telling. I'd rather have the limited resources not go to the kids who already have access to so much in their home schools.

+1. The status quo where 40 pct of the seats are taken up by 2 well resourced HS that are close to the magnets doesn’t make sense.

There are obvious and much simpler solutions to this problem you keep banging on about, like allocating seats per home high school to the county wide magnet programs. It doesn't require blowing everything up and creating the overly complicated and expensive regional model.

The regional model is bizzare. But, more magnets and opportunities for kids on non-w schools is sorely needed

Agreed, and that approach also doesn't need to close down the county wide magnets

They are closing them to offer more magnets. That’s good. Having a program serve a few hundred kids while many others go without is not reasonable.

I suspect this a few parents that thought magnets made their otherwise unremarkable school desirable thus helped real estate values. This “oh the special kids” trope is laughable. The Asian kid from churchhill doesn’t need Blair nearly as much as Blair needs them.

I suspect they do it as it’s easier to get into college with less competition. It’s strange to me that they want to go to school in a community they’d never live in as the point was to avoid those families and kids.

[Anonymous]

This petition is moot. They are continuing the magnets. In fact, there will be more of them that serve even more county residents than ever. This is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

FYI to petition-maker: Noticed that the petition has a typo in Rivera-Oven's first name.