Takoma Park MS Magnet - 25 inbound seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am advocating for the bold, but without the backdoor entry for 25 students from host schools. Every school and every kid should be treated fairly. There should be no special accommodations for host school.

I find it odd to describe a program whereby kids from the home school get to participate in the magnet program hosted by the home school as a special accommodation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is TP seats are for entire DCC or only for TP? If it's only for TP, it makes no sense.

+1

What's so unique about TP to give them quota?

Many MCCPTA leaders and county executives live in TP.

Yo crazy people every MS magnet in MCPS has a set aside for the host school because it doesn't cost anything as has been explained here about 1000 times.

TPMS is the only magnet that has a set aside.

No it isn't. RM has 25 (plus 100 out-of-area), Clemente and MLK have 25 (plus 50 out-of-area), Global has 25 (plus 50 out-of-area).
-parent with kids in those programs

Not sure about the others, but they announced this year that they are no longer holding set-asides for Global.

Very few really cares about global... kids at DC's school put that option in their application just to get an "acceptance". Most of them would not go at all even if not accepted by any other programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am advocating for the bold, but without the backdoor entry for 25 students from host schools. Every school and every kid should be treated fairly. There should be no special accommodations for host school.

I find it odd to describe a program whereby kids from the home school get to participate in the magnet program hosted by the home school as a special accommodation.

It is a special accommodation if there is quota of 25 seats for home school kids and every one else has to compete for rest 100 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:Is TP seats are for entire DCC or only for TP? If it's only for TP, it makes no sense.

+1

What's so unique about TP to give them quota?

Many MCCPTA leaders and county executives live in TP.

Yo crazy people every MS magnet in MCPS has a set aside for the host school because it doesn't cost anything as has been explained here about 1000 times.

Yup. Roberto Clemente MS had it. I don't know if MLK MS has taken over the Humanities one, but I would assume so.

They shouldn't have it because if we are putting 25 kids n magnet from one middle school then that means that middle school has large enough peer group.

You're shifting the goalposts.

The kids who at Roberto Clemente MS who benefit from the set-aside are, by and large, not white kids. They're Asian-American kids.

Shifting goal post???

Same person???

Come, on lots of people post here.

Since MCPS is focusing on peer group and if peer group is large enough then they shouldn't be in magnet. That's what MCPS is saying.

Clearly, if Roberto Clemente MS or TPMS is having 25 kids good enough for magnet then they don't need to be in magnet. Magnet seats should be given to others who don't have large enough peer group.

Then they'll get rid of the 25 seats, and the outliers at TPMS will take some of the 100 seats currently designated for OOB. This is so stupid. Same for RCMS. Less kids served all around. Certainly fewer OOB kids. If that's what you want....

No, MCPS shouldn't get rid of those 25 seats because there are enough teachers to educate 125 magnet students. They should simply allow 125 as county wide seat and not give backdoor entry to magnet to anyone. As far as capacity of school is concerned, it should be addressed by county wide boundary change to balance everything. This is one issue I want consultant to look closely when doing boundary analysis.

OK, so you REALLY DON'T get it. They have 100 county wide seats, not 125. 100. ONLY 100. The only reason that 25 are added is the addition of local resources. it's not all "MCPS." Resources are appropriated to schools by enrollment. That is why schools lose or gain teachers. There is no avenue to open up additional seats for OOB. If you want to get rid of in-boundary kids, the seats will be at 100, and the TP kids will take seats from your kids. Local school capacity is not a county-wide issue. I think all magnets should have local seats because they allow more spaces for out of boundary and allow more kids to benefit from the magnet without costing anything extra. TP, RC and RM do it. Eastern and Blair should as well. If you want to advocate, advocate for a magnet at your school! Or for more spots in general! Taking the local spots for the umpteenth million time does NOT add spots for OOB kids. It takes them AWAY. Duh.

You are describing how MCPS decide to do it long time ago.

TPMS quota seat has the same diversity as county or not , that's the question MCPS should be asking. Clearly, it's not and given what's going on right now, MCPS shouldn't be practicing that.

Your argument about 100 vs 125 seats due to capacity can be taken care by changing boundary and making up 25 extra seats in TPMS for magnet. Those extra seats can be taken by any one including kids from TPMS.

There is absolutely no basis to give backdoor entry in any magnet based on this capacity argument when county is trying o make it equitable for everyone.

*sigh* This isn't even coherent. There is no backdoor. The seats for the magnet are 100, the 25 come from local resources already designated for the school to be able to allot all 100 for OOB kids. Why can't you learn this? You post and post and post and just rail on and on. I'm sorry for your kid. There should be more programs/seats. Channel your energy into something more fruitful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am advocating for the bold, but without the backdoor entry for 25 students from host schools. Every school and every kid should be treated fairly. There should be no special accommodations for host school.

I find it odd to describe a program whereby kids from the home school get to participate in the magnet program hosted by the home school as a special accommodation.

It is a special accommodation if there is quota of 25 seats for home school kids and every one else has to compete for rest 100 seats.

To repeat: There are 100 seats. There are not 125 seats. If you get rid of the home school "special accommodation", what do you get? 25 fewer kids in the magnet class, and more kids competing for those 100 seats. Is that what you want?

[Anonymous]

It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

This. This is what people cannot accept because they have no experience with the area. People seem to have their ideas of SS/TP area because the houses are less expensive. When in actuality it is a highly educated area with an overwhelming number of professors, physicists, medical researchers and other PhD / advanced degree / intellectual professions that simply don’t pay a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

Curious what data you're referring to? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but I've never heard this before.

I'm zoned for TPMS and know a fair number of families in our area with kids in the magnet program, and I do know they're all strong students—I know some who were accepted to both Eastern and Takoma magnets. But I'm a little skeptical that there might be *that* large a number who would get in over kids from out of boundary. I mean, we're definitely not the ganglandia wasteland some here like to portray, but I wouldn't say we're Lake Woebegon, either ("...where all the children are above average...").

So if you really do have data that demonstrates such a strong high-performing cohort in SS and TKPK, I'd adore to have that in my arsenal of facts. And assuming they're also strong in English, then shouldn't we be arguing for the addition of a Humanities magnet class at TPMS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

Curious what data you're referring to? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but I've never heard this before.

I'm zoned for TPMS and know a fair number of families in our area with kids in the magnet program, and I do know they're all strong students—I know some who were accepted to both Eastern and Takoma magnets. But I'm a little skeptical that there might be *that* large a number who would get in over kids from out of boundary. I mean, we're definitely not the ganglandia wasteland some here like to portray, but I wouldn't say we're Lake Woebegon, either ("...where all the children are above average...").

So if you really do have data that demonstrates such a strong high-performing cohort in SS and TKPK, I'd adore to have that in my arsenal of facts. And assuming they're also strong in English, then shouldn't we be arguing for the addition of a Humanities magnet class at TPMS?

The spreadsheet for this was posted in a thread here yesterday. It was what MCPS used to establish high-achieving peer cohorts at various MS, and SS area MS had far more than any "good" school by a large margin. This showed percentages with high MAP and CogAT scores.

Many people equate high average test scores with high-achievement but in reality, it means low-poverty which isn't the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

Curious what data you're referring to? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but I've never heard this before.

I'm zoned for TPMS and know a fair number of families in our area with kids in the magnet program, and I do know they're all strong students—I know some who were accepted to both Eastern and Takoma magnets. But I'm a little skeptical that there might be *that* large a number who would get in over kids from out of boundary. I mean, we're definitely not the ganglandia wasteland some here like to portray, but I wouldn't say we're Lake Woebegon, either ("...where all the children are above average...").

So if you really do have data that demonstrates such a strong high-performing cohort in SS and TKPK, I'd adore to have that in my arsenal of facts. And assuming they're also strong in English, then shouldn't we be arguing for the addition of a Humanities magnet class at TPMS?

The spreadsheet for this was posted in a thread here yesterday. It was what MCPS used to establish high-achieving peer cohorts at various MS, and SS area MS had far more than any "good" school by a large margin. This showed percentages with high MAP and CogAT scores.

Many people equate high average test scores with high-achievement but in reality, it means low-poverty which isn't the same thing.

The magnets like TPMS and Eastern aren't included in that list for whatever reason, but you can read between the lines since PBES is the largest feeder and always sent more kids to the regional CES than any other ES in the area...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

Curious what data you're referring to? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but I've never heard this before.

I'm zoned for TPMS and know a fair number of families in our area with kids in the magnet program, and I do know they're all strong students—I know some who were accepted to both Eastern and Takoma magnets. But I'm a little skeptical that there might be *that* large a number who would get in over kids from out of boundary. I mean, we're definitely not the ganglandia wasteland some here like to portray, but I wouldn't say we're Lake Woebegon, either ("...where all the children are above average...").

So if you really do have data that demonstrates such a strong high-performing cohort in SS and TKPK, I'd adore to have that in my arsenal of facts. And assuming they're also strong in English, then shouldn't we be arguing for the addition of a Humanities magnet class at TPMS?

The spreadsheet for this was posted in a thread here yesterday. It was what MCPS used to establish high-achieving peer cohorts at various MS, and SS area MS had far more than any "good" school by a large margin. This showed percentages with high MAP and CogAT scores.

Many people equate high average test scores with high-achievement but in reality, it means low-poverty which isn't the same thing.

The magnets like TPMS and Eastern aren't included in that list for whatever reason, but you can read between the lines since PBES is the largest feeder and always sent more kids to the regional CES than any other ES in the area...

The SS MS was the front runner for MAP-M achievers which was one of the better predictors for the STEM magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn't a quota but a limit without which there would be more like 50 in boundary kids in the program taking even more seats from the out of boundary kids.

MCPS' own data used to establish cohort criteria shows the SS area has the largest number of high-performers of any MS by a wide margin, and TKPK is the same or more so.

Curious what data you're referring to? I'm not disagreeing necessarily, but I've never heard this before.

I'm zoned for TPMS and know a fair number of families in our area with kids in the magnet program, and I do know they're all strong students—I know some who were accepted to both Eastern and Takoma magnets. But I'm a little skeptical that there might be *that* large a number who would get in over kids from out of boundary. I mean, we're definitely not the ganglandia wasteland some here like to portray, but I wouldn't say we're Lake Woebegon, either ("...where all the children are above average...").

So if you really do have data that demonstrates such a strong high-performing cohort in SS and TKPK, I'd adore to have that in my arsenal of facts. And assuming they're also strong in English, then shouldn't we be arguing for the addition of a Humanities magnet class at TPMS?

The spreadsheet for this was posted in a thread here yesterday. It was what MCPS used to establish high-achieving peer cohorts at various MS, and SS area MS had far more than any "good" school by a large margin. This showed percentages with high MAP and CogAT scores.

Many people equate high average test scores with high-achievement but in reality, it means low-poverty which isn't the same thing.

The magnets like TPMS and Eastern aren't included in that list for whatever reason, but you can read between the lines since PBES is the largest feeder and always sent more kids to the regional CES than any other ES in the area...

The SS MS was the front runner for MAP-M achievers which was one of the better predictors for the STEM magnet.

This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

[Anonymous]

This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.

Special accommodations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This chart?
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/schools/msmagnet/about/MS%20Magnet%20Field%20Test%20Data%20by%20Sending%20MS.pdf

I'm glad that someone found the char. I knew that SSIM was high.

To be fair though the columns showing #s highly able by MAP scores are the numbers AFTER the scores have been adjusted by FARMS. If I am in a school with low FARMS I need to achieve a much higher score to be included in the highly able category. For example, I could score a 85% on MAP M or R at SSIM and Sligo and get into the bucker but if I move over to Pyle or Frost I have to score a 98%. PARCC was not adjusted and this is why you see such a strange pattern with large numbers being in highly able by MAP but much lower number scoring high on PARCC and vice versa.

This data does not make the case though for retaining special accommodations for TPMS though as there are many OOB schools ranging from SSIM to Cabin John with gifted or highly able kids. I've argued that if there are any set aside spots that they should be open to the entire DCC. From a fairness perspective, they should be open to all OOB students.

Cognat wasn't adjusted either and the number of eligible students at SSIMS, for example, is consistent across each of the testing categories.