Middle school magnets - criteria-based

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be petty. The high FARM schools are just 8 schools, and I guarantee the kids there are not up against your kids for the magnet spots.

High FARMS kids are absolutely competing against low FARMS kids for spots. If you want to call it a "competition" since it is now a lottery process. They are dumping everyone into a pool (to get into the pool those high farms kids need much lower scores). Though MCPS won't publish their secret sauce, those kids who qualify to be in the pool from high farms schools are going to be "weighted" in the lottery because they likely have no cohort at their receiving MS. The middle school magnet program mission has fundamentally changed since 2016ish. The magnets are there to serve above average kids with no learning cohort. They are not there to serve the "most-gifted" students.

Except they're not dumping everyone into a pool just the top 15%.

Yes, but the top 15% in one school may be at a 60th percentile when measured regionally or nationally. And top 15% could also be in the 95th percentile when measured regionally or Nationally. So the kids are not the same caliber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I am curious about are three things. First, whether MCPS has any data on the educational impact of FARMS students moving from high FARMS to low FARMS schools? Second, I would like to understand how they consider this scenario: a non-FARMS student in a high FARMs school receiving advantage in selection than a FARMS student in a low FARMS school. Perhaps that is the goal? Third, what is the appropriate level of education to meet the needs of the high performing kids that are not selected?

With the caveat that I'm not an MCPS employee, but am someone who pays significant attention to these issues for both personal and professional reasons:

1) There is substantial data at the national level for the educational impact of low-income kids moving from high-FARMS to low-FARMS schools. Short answer: they do better, without impacting the education of non-FARMS kids in their new schools. Basically, economically integrated education works for everyone, and the primary barrier to economically integrated schools isn't really school policy - it is housing policy.

2) In that scenario, a non-FARMS student in a high-FARMS school would get an advantage in terms of being admitted to the lottery pool, but they would not get any additional weighting once put into the lottery. While MCPS has been pretty obtuse about the process, it is widely believed that FARMS status does provide a weight above and beyond being put in-pool. This goes to the point about having a peer group, not just being high performing.

Also, if you look at the list from p.1 with a good awareness of the individual schools, you'll note that the eight schools in the highest FARMS category have extremely high FARMS rates, and very little middle class housing in-bounds. The schools in "moderate FARMS" are more mixed.

3) This is where MCPS has just utterly fallen down. Just catastrophically abdicated their responsibilities. They were supposed to roll out advanced classes (AIM for math and HIGH for social studies) at all middle schools AND cohort those classes. They did not. In some cases, they rolled out only one of the classes (either AIM or HIGH). In some cases, they rolled out both but didn't cohort them. Most recently, they've rolled out one (HIGH) but have not cohorted it, while removing AIM entirely.

I try to be pretty even-handed toward MCPS and acknowledge when they are constrained by difficult circumstances, but the way they have handled the MS accelerated classes is absolutely inexcusable. Heads should roll for the botched rollout, the lack of consistency across the district, and the shocking decision to just remove one of the advanced classes.

Our school offers both AIM and HIGH and both are wonderful. If they could do something to improve English, I'd have 0 complaints.

What school are in you in OP?

In addition to an enriched English class, I'd like to see an enriched science class

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if grades for math count for the humanities magnet or the grades for English count for STEM magnets? DD is very strong in her reading and writing and MAP at 95% but has Bs in math. Just wondering if that would affect her chances in the humanities magnet. Moderate FARMs if that makes any difference.

[Anonymous]

I think making the purposes of the criteria-based magnets clearer might help. By definition most parents/guardians would probably think that a child they consider gifted does not have much of a surrounding cohort, because an instinctual reading of giftedness could well include a sense of separation or "different-ness" from peers. So the argument that magnets should be primarily or significantly serving students who lack cohorts at their sending schools is probably going to fall flat with much of the parent/guardian audience.

But using simple, absolute achievement data as a barrier to magnet access will, as folks on here know, create other inequities, since that data cannot capture potential that has been confined by circumstance. A student coming from a less-than-ideal home situation is unlikely to have all possible advantages in showing what they _could_ do.

Obviously, there is no easy fix. But I personally would hate to see a student whose somewhat lower MAP score reflects talent limited by struggle miss out on special chances. Is FARMS eligibility a good proxy for that? I'd wish for a school-recommendation program to supplement and grow that pool, as long as such a program were not a burden for teachers.

And I'd also wish for a few more magnets. The number of seats is devastatingly low for the number of students who need and deserve to be served by them. And that includes those who are already performing at toptop level, as well as those who need someone to take a chance on them in order to do the same. I'd like to hope that the parents/guardians who continue to advocate for magnet access for their kids wouldn't care if there was another magnet program with similar standards down the street - the point is for the kid to have the education they need and deserve, and that education does not have to be rare to make it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think making the purposes of the criteria-based magnets clearer might help. By definition most parents/guardians would probably think that a child they consider gifted does not have much of a surrounding cohort, because an instinctual reading of giftedness could well include a sense of separation or "different-ness" from peers. So the argument that magnets should be primarily or significantly serving students who lack cohorts at their sending schools is probably going to fall flat with much of the parent/guardian audience.

But using simple, absolute achievement data as a barrier to magnet access will, as folks on here know, create other inequities, since that data cannot capture potential that has been confined by circumstance. A student coming from a less-than-ideal home situation is unlikely to have all possible advantages in showing what they _could_ do.

Obviously, there is no easy fix. But I personally would hate to see a student whose somewhat lower MAP score reflects talent limited by struggle miss out on special chances. Is FARMS eligibility a good proxy for that? I'd wish for a school-recommendation program to supplement and grow that pool, as long as such a program were not a burden for teachers.

And I'd also wish for a few more magnets. The number of seats is devastatingly low for the number of students who need and deserve to be served by them. And that includes those who are already performing at toptop level, as well as those who need someone to take a chance on them in order to do the same. I'd like to hope that the parents/guardians who continue to advocate for magnet access for their kids wouldn't care if there was another magnet program with similar standards down the street - the point is for the kid to have the education they need and deserve, and that education does not have to be rare to make it right.

Teacher recommendations were part of the old process. They got rid of this because teachers didn't seem to recommend black and hispanic kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think making the purposes of the criteria-based magnets clearer might help. By definition most parents/guardians would probably think that a child they consider gifted does not have much of a surrounding cohort, because an instinctual reading of giftedness could well include a sense of separation or "different-ness" from peers. So the argument that magnets should be primarily or significantly serving students who lack cohorts at their sending schools is probably going to fall flat with much of the parent/guardian audience.

But using simple, absolute achievement data as a barrier to magnet access will, as folks on here know, create other inequities, since that data cannot capture potential that has been confined by circumstance. A student coming from a less-than-ideal home situation is unlikely to have all possible advantages in showing what they _could_ do.

Obviously, there is no easy fix. But I personally would hate to see a student whose somewhat lower MAP score reflects talent limited by struggle miss out on special chances. Is FARMS eligibility a good proxy for that? I'd wish for a school-recommendation program to supplement and grow that pool, as long as such a program were not a burden for teachers.

And I'd also wish for a few more magnets. The number of seats is devastatingly low for the number of students who need and deserve to be served by them. And that includes those who are already performing at toptop level, as well as those who need someone to take a chance on them in order to do the same. I'd like to hope that the parents/guardians who continue to advocate for magnet access for their kids wouldn't care if there was another magnet program with similar standards down the street - the point is for the kid to have the education they need and deserve, and that education does not have to be rare to make it right.

Teacher recommendations were part of the old process. They got rid of this because teachers didn't seem to recommend black and hispanic kids.

Yes, I have heard about that and agree very strongly that equity problems would have to be addressed if school recs were to be introduced. Maybe there is no way to cope with those issues without creating further problems. But in thinking about other ways not to miss out kids who need these kinds of opportunities I keep coming back to those on the front lines, the people who see kids every day, both inside and outside of the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, STEM magnet with a 60th percentile score. I can see giving some boost for higher FARM rates, but this seems excessive. 60th national percentile might actually be below average in MCPS.

I'm going to ask a dumb question. If a child is in 60th percentile and another child is in the 92% percentile, aren't' the 2 children at different levels? How does attending the magnet program help either student?

They are, but the theory MCPS is working with here is that the MS magnets aren't just for kids who are already high achievers, but also for those who have the potential to excel and would not have a peer group at their home MS. The eight elementary schools with that low threshold are also *incredibly* high needs. Unlike some of the moderate FARMS schools, there really are very few MS kids in those eight schools. They exist, but these are schools with 90+ percent of kids receiving FARMS. So, there's a good chance that any random kid you pull out of that pool is experiencing real poverty, may be an English Language Learner, and has parents who may not speak English and may not have the resources to push in extensive prep.

So, the MCPS theory is that a kid hitting 60% with those disadvantages might have the same potential as a kid hitting 95% with every advantage in the world.

Of course, it's not a perfect system because it's based on averages. Not every single kid at Arcola is poor, and not every single kid at Bethesda is getting test prep on the weekends, but MCPS is looking at averages.

What I am curious about are three things. First, whether MCPS has any data on the educational impact of FARMS students moving from high FARMS to low FARMS schools? Second, I would like to understand how they consider this scenario: a non-FARMS student in a high FARMs school receiving advantage in selection than a FARMS student in a low FARMS school. Perhaps that is the goal? Third, what is the appropriate level of education to meet the needs of the high performing kids that are not selected?

I think right now they're just letting in more mediocre non-farm students from high farm schools into the programs. It's a penalty for farm students living in non-farm school neighborhood. It would be interesting to see current 6th and 7th grade magnet program MAP profile side by side comparison with all other individual MS MAP profile. I suspect some schools in low farm area may even outperform magnet programs. MCPS need to address the needs for high performing students that are not selected through lottery.

It's not exactly true. Individually students do get extra consideration for being FARMS in addition to having different cut offs based on SES grouping for their school.

+1 FARMs kids get two thumbs on the scale, not just one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The drive was removed. My child had much higher scores and was never even considered for the magnet programs.

What are you talking about? Can’t make any sense of this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already mid-January. When will the lottery results come out?

Someone on another thread said they would be out on. Jan. 21st. But that didn't come from MCPS, so not sure how much weight to put on it.

Yes it did. The date of Jan 21 (in fact BY that date) is on the MCPS website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if grades for math count for the humanities magnet or the grades for English count for STEM magnets? DD is very strong in her reading and writing and MAP at 95% but has Bs in math. Just wondering if that would affect her chances in the humanities magnet. Moderate FARMs if that makes any difference.

She’ll likely be in the pool for humanities. They will re-weight her MAP R percentile based on the scores of others in her FARMS band, but she’ll probably get into the pool, although she’s near the cusp and it depends on how others scored this year. Her math grade won’t impact that, but she won’t be in the stem pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the magnets have been watered down, as have the CES programs. It would be better to have enriched courses in English and Science (not just math and social studies) avaialble at all schools, with magnets reserved for the highest-achieving kids.

+1

Currently they have advanced social studies at my local middle school. It’s ridiculous, my child is in the 6 th grade HIGH social studies class and they meet only once a week or sometimes even once every 2 weeks for “enrichment studies.” In theory having enrichment courses at the local school would have been great but of course mcps has to f*** that up to.

Wait at your school the enriched HIGH class only meets weekly? It is supposed to be a cohorted social studies class that meets daily.

I’m PP. yes they only meet one every week or once every 2 weeks. It’s bonkers, bc at back to school night they made it seem like it was daily. It’s actually quite tricky how they have done it, even though all the kids in my child’s class are together, the ones that met once a week have HIGH Listed on their schedule and those who don’t meet for enrichment are listed as the alternative. They couldn’t even put all thevHIGH students in the whole middle school in one class…they had to mix then in a mixed ability classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the magnets have been watered down, as have the CES programs. It would be better to have enriched courses in English and Science (not just math and social studies) avaialble at all schools, with magnets reserved for the highest-achieving kids.

+1

Currently they have advanced social studies at my local middle school. It’s ridiculous, my child is in the 6 th grade HIGH social studies class and they meet only once a week or sometimes even once every 2 weeks for “enrichment studies.” In theory having enrichment courses at the local school would have been great but of course mcps has to f*** that up to.

Wait at your school the enriched HIGH class only meets weekly? It is supposed to be a cohorted social studies class that meets daily.

I’m PP. yes they only meet one every week or once every 2 weeks. It’s bonkers, bc at back to school night they made it seem like it was daily. It’s actually quite tricky how they have done it, even though all the kids in my child’s class are together, the ones that met once a week have HIGH Listed on their schedule and those who don’t meet for enrichment are listed as the alternative. They couldn’t even put all thevHIGH students in the whole middle school in one class…they had to mix then in a mixed ability classroom.

My child’s class meets daily and is cohorted, but the lessons/curriculum are not enriched or accelerated — it’s the same as the grade level course. They just give them an extra book to read at home each semester and do a quick extra project that is like a one night hw assignment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think making the purposes of the criteria-based magnets clearer might help. By definition most parents/guardians would probably think that a child they consider gifted does not have much of a surrounding cohort, because an instinctual reading of giftedness could well include a sense of separation or "different-ness" from peers. So the argument that magnets should be primarily or significantly serving students who lack cohorts at their sending schools is probably going to fall flat with much of the parent/guardian audience.

But using simple, absolute achievement data as a barrier to magnet access will, as folks on here know, create other inequities, since that data cannot capture potential that has been confined by circumstance. A student coming from a less-than-ideal home situation is unlikely to have all possible advantages in showing what they _could_ do.

Obviously, there is no easy fix. But I personally would hate to see a student whose somewhat lower MAP score reflects talent limited by struggle miss out on special chances. Is FARMS eligibility a good proxy for that? I'd wish for a school-recommendation program to supplement and grow that pool, as long as such a program were not a burden for teachers.

And I'd also wish for a few more magnets. The number of seats is devastatingly low for the number of students who need and deserve to be served by them. And that includes those who are already performing at toptop level, as well as those who need someone to take a chance on them in order to do the same. I'd like to hope that the parents/guardians who continue to advocate for magnet access for their kids wouldn't care if there was another magnet program with similar standards down the street - the point is for the kid to have the education they need and deserve, and that education does not have to be rare to make it right.

Teacher recommendations were part of the old process. They got rid of this because teachers didn't seem to recommend black and hispanic kids.

Yes, I have heard about that and agree very strongly that equity problems would have to be addressed if school recs were to be introduced. Maybe there is no way to cope with those issues without creating further problems. But in thinking about other ways not to miss out kids who need these kinds of opportunities I keep coming back to those on the front lines, the people who see kids every day, both inside and outside of the classroom.

Look, to be utterly blunt - elementary education is primarily staffed by young white women. Even with the absolute best possible intentions, and given all of the things we know about implicit bias, there's just no way that those teachers have the tools to evaluate giftedness as it presents in groups other than well-behaved white/Asian girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the magnets have been watered down, as have the CES programs. It would be better to have enriched courses in English and Science (not just math and social studies) avaialble at all schools, with magnets reserved for the highest-achieving kids.

+1

Currently they have advanced social studies at my local middle school. It’s ridiculous, my child is in the 6 th grade HIGH social studies class and they meet only once a week or sometimes even once every 2 weeks for “enrichment studies.” In theory having enrichment courses at the local school would have been great but of course mcps has to f*** that up to.

Wait at your school the enriched HIGH class only meets weekly? It is supposed to be a cohorted social studies class that meets daily.

I’m PP. yes they only meet one every week or once every 2 weeks. It’s bonkers, bc at back to school night they made it seem like it was daily. It’s actually quite tricky how they have done it, even though all the kids in my child’s class are together, the ones that met once a week have HIGH Listed on their schedule and those who don’t meet for enrichment are listed as the alternative. They couldn’t even put all thevHIGH students in the whole middle school in one class…they had to mix then in a mixed ability classroom.

So they attend a class called HIGH every day, but the enrichment meetings only happen every one or two weeks, during that class period? What do the other students do during these enrichment meetings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, STEM magnet with a 60th percentile score. I can see giving some boost for higher FARM rates, but this seems excessive. 60th national percentile might actually be below average in MCPS.

I'm going to ask a dumb question. If a child is in 60th percentile and another child is in the 92% percentile, aren't' the 2 children at different levels? How does attending the magnet program help either student?

They are, but the theory MCPS is working with here is that the MS magnets aren't just for kids who are already high achievers, but also for those who have the potential to excel and would not have a peer group at their home MS. The eight elementary schools with that low threshold are also *incredibly* high needs. Unlike some of the moderate FARMS schools, there really are very few MS kids in those eight schools. They exist, but these are schools with 90+ percent of kids receiving FARMS. So, there's a good chance that any random kid you pull out of that pool is experiencing real poverty, may be an English Language Learner, and has parents who may not speak English and may not have the resources to push in extensive prep.

So, the MCPS theory is that a kid hitting 60% with those disadvantages might have the same potential as a kid hitting 95% with every advantage in the world.

Of course, it's not a perfect system because it's based on averages. Not every single kid at Arcola is poor, and not every single kid at Bethesda is getting test prep on the weekends, but MCPS is looking at averages.

What I am curious about are three things. First, whether MCPS has any data on the educational impact of FARMS students moving from high FARMS to low FARMS schools? Second, I would like to understand how they consider this scenario: a non-FARMS student in a high FARMs school receiving advantage in selection than a FARMS student in a low FARMS school. Perhaps that is the goal? Third, what is the appropriate level of education to meet the needs of the high performing kids that are not selected?

I think right now they're just letting in more mediocre non-farm students from high farm schools into the programs. It's a penalty for farm students living in non-farm school neighborhood. It would be interesting to see current 6th and 7th grade magnet program MAP profile side by side comparison with all other individual MS MAP profile. I suspect some schools in low farm area may even outperform magnet programs. MCPS need to address the needs for high performing students that are not selected through lottery.

DP but no, they really don’t. High-performing students, especially those from wealthier areas, do not need another leg up. They do not need extra public resources when SO many kids are behind and do need that help. I’m happy for my tax dollars to go towards boosting up the kids who live in poverty - not so much for them to go towards giving already advantaged kids still more advantage.

MCPS’s system is imperfect, but I appreciate what they’re trying to do. I have little sympathy for parents who deliberately sequester themselves in wealthy areas and then whine that their kids aren’t receiving still more enrichment from the *public* school system.

We can agree to disagree. I think the public school system is designed to provide a free and appropriate public education to all students. I don’t think it needs to be an either/or, that if they need to give extra resources to needier students that they cannot also meet the needs of gifted learners. It actually isn’t very expensive in terms of dollars to offer accelerated/enriched courses. The 6th graders still need to take English no matter their level. I don’t think it would cost more to have them study books at the appropriate depth rather than re-read at grade level books they read in 4th grade.

If it were solely about the tangible resources you describe, e.g., books, this wouldn’t be an issue. But it’s not - it’s about staffing, it’s about having distinct cohorts of kids, as in the kind the magnet schools provide.

I also think “appropriate” is debatable in this context. I think the resources MCPS provides are mostly very appropriate (I used to work in educational research, so I have a better sense of how MCPS fits into the big picture than many people). But look at how many wealthy parents lost their minds when the current framework was implemented; to them, “appropriate” means something very different than it does to less entitled individuals. At some point, too, parents need to think about what they’re on the hook for providing to their kids, and this is where disadvantaged children can really suffer disproportionately, because their parents and surroundings don’t offer the kind of enrichment they do for wealthier kids. If my DD doesn’t get into the TPMS magnet, we can find other ways to teach her coding. It’s not the same, but pretending like the wealthy lack for options isn’t useful.