Did anyone from Westland/Cabin John/N. Bethesda/Frost/Pyle/Hoover get in to MS magnets last year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

[Anonymous]

One Pyle district kid who got in here. I couldn't tell you the scores, but she does have at least one classmate from the same school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Sure, let's say that 50% of the spots at TPMS and EMS now go to kids who would not have applied or been offered a spot under the previous process. That's 100 6th graders, out of 12,000. Great for them, but what about the other thousands of kids for whom that may mean little. Or the fact that for kids - and they exist in droves - who could really use a rigorous educational program, taking away perceived opportunities at the MS magnets may sour them on the system.

There was an interesting article this week in the Economist about GT programs in the US. They noted, as expected, de Blasio's efforts to change the make-up of the selective high schools in NYC. But what was shocking was the following: "An astonishing 40% of high schools in the city do not teach chemistry, physics or upper-level algebra..." Yes, great, the students who may be able to access the selective high schools in some future (because change hasn't happened yet) will benefit tremendously, but it's a crime that the NYC administration is making such a big deal about the selective high schools and its proposed changes when Rome is burning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm als[/b]o of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

[b]
The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.[b]

I fear it is just window dressing. The numbers on "offers" look better, but ehat about actual enrollment?

A poster on another thread said appeals was the new ms magnet admissions process and that their school was back to 40 percent of the class getting into ms magnets. That likely means offers are being disproportionately declined by those the new admissions process intended to admit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I fear it is just window dressing. The numbers on "offers" look better, but ehat about actual enrollment?

A poster on another thread said appeals was the new ms magnet admissions process and that their school was back to 40 percent of the class getting into ms magnets. That likely means offers are being disproportionately declined by those the new admissions process intended to admit.

I think it probably means that offers are being disproportionately declined by those whom the new admissions process unfairly benefited (according to people who opposed the new admissions process).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm als[/b]o of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

[b]
The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.[b]

I fear it is just window dressing. The numbers on "offers" look better, but ehat about actual enrollment?

A poster on another thread said appeals was the new ms magnet admissions process and that their school
was back to 40 percent of the class getting into ms magnets. That likely means offers are being disproportionately declined by those the new admissions process intended to admit.

Actually the data the county has published indicates these changes are working to provide greater equity, but if you were in that affluent group that benefited before at the expense of others I guess I could understand why you are against the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.

Has it? still mostly white and Asian kids across the board. Standardized tests aren’t going to start being forgiving to not-well rounded lower income minorities. The peer cohort will help middle class white and Asian kids compete against better rounded rich kids, that’s all. The testing for all will help a few diamonds in the rough but not many. There simply isn’t go to be a influx of ESOL or FARMs even if the drop their specific standards which they can’t effectively without being challenged in court. The local peer cohort can also be read as “how many white kids are in your class at the home school. Not enough? then here is a leg up for the schools within a school for your last shot of segregation if you don’t have a strong cohort in the DCC for instance.

Wonder what constitutes a strong peer group by the numbers, I bet the Venn diagram looks like a circle when compared to test score by race and SES

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.

Has it? still mostly white and Asian kids across the board. Standardized tests aren’t going to start being forgiving to not-well rounded lower income minorities. The peer cohort will help middle class white and Asian kids compete against better rounded rich kids, that’s all. The testing for all will help a few diamonds in the rough but not many. There simply isn’t go to be a influx of ESOL or FARMs even if the drop their specific standards which they can’t effectively without being challenged in court. The local peer cohort can also be read as “how many white kids are in your class at the home school. Not enough? then here is a leg up for the schools within a school for your last shot of segregation if you don’t have a strong cohort in the DCC for instance.

Wonder what constitutes a strong peer group by the numbers, I bet the Venn diagram looks like a circle when compared to test score by race and SES

The changes doubled the number of undrepresented minorities from what they were before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.

Has it? still mostly white and Asian kids across the board. Standardized tests aren’t going to start being forgiving to not-well rounded lower income minorities. The peer cohort will help middle class white and Asian kids compete against better rounded rich kids, that’s all. The testing for all will help a few diamonds in the rough but not many. There simply isn’t go to be a influx of ESOL or FARMs even if the drop their specific standards which they can’t effectively without being challenged in court. The local peer cohort can also be read as “how many white kids are in your class at the home school. Not enough? then here is a leg up for the schools within a school for your last shot of segregation if you don’t have a strong cohort in the DCC for instance.

Wonder what constitutes a strong peer group by the numbers, I bet the Venn diagram looks like a circle when compared to test score by race and SES

The changes doubled the number of undrepresented minorities from what they were before.

We need to see admitted numbers by group compared to enrolled numbers by group to know if this is true.

[Anonymous]

That is.offered admission compared to enrolled.and attending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC's home MS is Tilden -- one of three I know of from home ES attending a magnet MS. If there are others who got in and declined the offer, I don't know about them -- I do know one of the three kids got into both magnet MS.

Having had one kid go through Tilden already, I think the cohort rationale is nonsense. It's not the cohort that makes the difference between an average to subpar education and a good to great one, it's the curriculum and the quality/training of the teachers that makes the difference. The magnet MS is not perfect by any means, but the quality of the instruction and the curriculum in the magnet classes blows the instruction/curriculum at Tilden out of the water.

The real shame here is that the very existence of these so-called "cohorts" demonstrates that there are groups of kids at every MS who would rise to the challenge of the magnet-level curricula. Instead of figuring out different ways to split the pie, MCPS should make the pie bigger and provide much better curricula (and train teachers to implement them) at all the MS (and not just these "magnet lite" advanced courses, but the truly excellent and integrated curricula the magnet kids benefit from).

+1

Yes to all this.

Although I agree there's some truth to their statements, I also think it's a bit more complicated than this. Nevertheless, I expect the county to add more stem magnets in 1-2 years once they finish with the IB magnets.

We'll see. There was a recent WaPo article that basically said that everything MoCo has been trying over the past x number of years (cannot remember specific number) hasn't worked to close the achievement gap. I'm of the view that no amount of money (or no realistically available amount) that you throw at the problem will overcome the severe obstacles many kids who are not doing well face at home or in their communities. But I'm also of the view that the MoCo, and other localities, cannot simply throw their hands up and stop trying. We have to try and find a better way, even if it's a sisyphean task, and that's going to mean applying more resources to the issue. And that's where the resources are going to go, not for magnets. The BoD and County Council reflect that view, as far as I can tell. It's an issue over which I'm very torn. Easy to think about the collective good, unless it directly impacts your child.

Another +1. I'm all for closing the achievement gap, for lifting more boats, and also all for my own child getting a MUCH better education than she has gotten so far.

The changes they made to admissions for these programs has definitely improved inclusion and their numbers. Sure, there's still a lot of room for improvement but it is a significant step in the right direction.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. Sure, let's say that 50% of the spots at TPMS and EMS now go to kids who would not have applied or been offered a spot under the previous process. That's 100 6th graders, out of 12,000. Great for them, but what about the other thousands of kids for whom that may mean little. Or the fact that for kids - and they exist in droves - who could really use a rigorous educational program, taking away perceived opportunities at the MS magnets may sour them on the system.

There was an interesting article this week in the Economist about GT programs in the US. They noted, as expected, de Blasio's efforts to change the make-up of the selective high schools in NYC. But what was shocking was the following: "An astonishing 40% of high schools in the city do not teach chemistry, physics or upper-level algebra..." Yes, great, the students who may be able to access the selective high schools in some future (because change hasn't happened yet) will benefit tremendously, but it's a crime that the NYC administration is making such a big deal about the selective high schools and its proposed changes when Rome is burning.

This is bad but I am guessing that the kids there have not been academically prepared to succeed in those classes, not that the system is not capable of offering the classes. Definitely the emphasis needs to be on solid ES and MS preparation.