Robert Frost beats Takoma Park in Mathcounts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is insane. Seriously, 22 pp?!?!?! This just makes me really glad my kid isn't at Frost, and I don't have to deal with these nutty parents. Yikes!

TPMS is not in decline. The new process utilized some different metrics but also screened a lot more kids. We need more enrichment for kids who have potential to be the top but haven't had the enrichment that kids who made it in the old system (I can say this, I have 2 of them). Old magnet selection TPMS students are excellent. New selection students are also excellent. Frost seems to be a great school as well (albeit with some bat-****-crazy parents). Yay, for great schools and bright students.

Make the most of your school and stop trying to denigrate others. The end.

Thank you!!!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am worried, actually. TP is deteriorating obviously (thank you, MCPS). The Frost teachers would have retired by the time DC is a middle schooler. Where could DD go?

It's stronger than ever. Since they started universal screening their drawing from a pool 10X larger than before. I wish these bitter parents would stop with the disinformation.

I teach at TPMS and my sense is the caliber of student has markedly improved in recent years because of the better screening methods.

Thank you!

? You realize that if this is true, MCPS would be shouting this from the rooftops, and publishing the median test scores of accepted students, right? No.. I guess you don't realize that.

Instead, they are burying these results. They publish the stats on how the peer cohort and universal screening increased URM numbers, which is awesome, but they bury the stats on the test scores. Why do you suppose that is?

They have been, but bitter parents only want to complain because their over prepped marginal kid won't get past the new process.

Again.. post the test score stats here, then. But you can't... all you do is try to blow smoke up people's a$$es. Put up or shut up.. as the saying goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am worried, actually. TP is deteriorating obviously (thank you, MCPS). The Frost teachers would have retired by the time DC is a middle schooler. Where could DD go?

It's stronger than ever. Since they started universal screening their drawing from a pool 10X larger than before. I wish these bitter parents would stop with the disinformation.

I teach at TPMS and my sense is the caliber of student has markedly improved in recent years because of the better screening methods.

Thank you!

? You realize that if this is true, MCPS would be shouting this from the rooftops, and publishing the median test scores of accepted students, right? No.. I guess you don't realize that.

Instead, they are burying these results. They publish the stats on how the peer cohort and universal screening increased URM numbers, which is awesome, but they bury the stats on the test scores. Why do you suppose that is?

They have been, but bitter parents only want to complain because their over prepped marginal kid won't get past the new process.

Again.. post the test score stats here, then. But you can't... all you do is try to blow smoke up people's a$$es. Put up or shut up.. as the saying goes.

Seriously, stop!
You realize there is more to a student than their test scores and there is more to a program than their test scores, right?!?

The test scores themselves won't show growth, just student score which may or may not have been impacted by the school or program...

[Anonymous]

NP. I'm a Frost parent. Please stop this thread. Really. Please stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL

One time Frost beats TPMS and all the W parents come glowing and singing.
Even Leicester won the BPL too.

But I understand. When you beat the big dog, you gotta glow

^^ the only truthful post in this thread

I think you're right. Frost had a good day but I doubt this will happen again or is even repeatable. In fact, let's follow up on this in a couple of months and see how it pans out. Most the nonsense posted here is by bitter parents whose kids weren't able to make the cut for TPMS so they delight in trash-talking and spreading debunked conspiracy theories.

You mean MCPS admitting high performers only based on peer cohort is a conspiracy theory?

Sure, Fost had a good day, but will likely be creamed by TPMS in the state competition next month. The bitter parents whose kids failed to make the cut at TPMS will gloss over this since it doesn't support their bogus narrative.

Go, TPMS!

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am worried, actually. TP is deteriorating obviously (thank you, MCPS). The Frost teachers would have retired by the time DC is a middle schooler. Where could DD go?

It's stronger than ever. Since they started universal screening their drawing from a pool 10X larger than before. I wish these bitter parents would stop with the disinformation.

I teach at TPMS and my sense is the caliber of student has markedly improved in recent years because of the better screening methods.

Thank you!

? You realize that if this is true, MCPS would be shouting this from the rooftops, and publishing the median test scores of accepted students, right? No.. I guess you don't realize that.

Instead, they are burying these results. They publish the stats on how the peer cohort and universal screening increased URM numbers, which is awesome, but they bury the stats on the test scores. Why do you suppose that is?

They have been, but bitter parents only want to complain because their over prepped marginal kid won't get past the new process.

Again.. post the test score stats here, then. But you can't... all you do is try to blow smoke up people's a$$es. Put up or shut up.. as the saying goes.

Seriously, stop!
You realize there is more to a student than their test scores and there is more to a program than their test scores, right?!?

The test scores themselves won't show growth, just student score which may or may not have been impacted by the school or program...

LOL. I knew this would come up. Test scores didn't go up, but somehow the caliber of students did. But a PP insists that the stats prove otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am sure you have the data. Here is what I found for the 7th grade:

2018 TPMS has 9 7th grade honor rolls (not impacted by the new selection)
2019 TPMS has 4 7th grade honor rolls (impacted by the new selection)

You still want us to believe that the magnet program has got better?

This doesn't feel like an apples to apples comparison, because the 2018 data has 1800 more students and goes down to a score of 15. The 2019 data only goes down to a score of 19.

But even if we look at these two sets of data, something interesting emerges. Even if we find that this year's 7th graders are not placing as high as last year's 7th graders in this math competition, this year's 6th graders are doing better.

So, what if this isn't about TPMS "declining" but rather about whether this one year had some natural flux in kids who were motivated by competition math, and now that number is back up for normal reasons like "kids are different, and different batches of kids will be interested in different things."

The honor roll threshold is decided by the lowest score of the top 5%. More contestants in a year can not explain away the fact that the relative decline of the magnet program. Your defense of the “ever stronger” TPMS magnet program has not been supported by any hard data.

You cannot base a judgement of "relative decline" on a single year of data. This year's 6th graders did better in the same test than last year's 6th graders. Does this denote that TPMS is improving? Or does it denote that there will be natural fluctuations in performance depending on a wide variety of factors?

Of course there are natural fluctuations, but a sharp decrease of 5/9 = 56%? Spin it anyway you want. I don’t have access to all the data. Maybe we can compare the 6th graders selected by the new process with the old process. You have to go back three years and longer for that.

All I know is that recently frost defeated TPMS twice in a row in mathleague and now again in Mathcounts. you said there are x number of amc 8 honor rolls this year. Then it turns out TPMS amc 8 performance has obviously been negatively impacted by the “improved” selection process. I don’t think it convincing to call it natural fluctuations.

PP here. If you are a TPMS teacher I can understand your position, but please don’t insult us by calling it an “improved” selection process.

let's call it the fairer process that identifies gifted kids instead of the most prepped

I think there is no evidence that this is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm a Frost parent. Please stop this thread. Really. Please stop.

People say that you do not know if you are talking to a dog on the internet. No one is crazy enough to take anything here seriously. Relax, please.

[Anonymous]

To be fair the TPMS magnet has always had a "range" of learners. The 25 in boundary seats were always the bottom of the pack. Cold Spring ES used to send almost half if their CES program to TPMS and they were at the ultra high end of the spectrum along with kids from other schools in Bethesda/Potomac and the occasional outlier that from other SS schools that made it in under the CS kids and above the in boundary slow pack. This made TP residents happy and filled the rest of the program with the highest achieving students. No one cared too much.

Now virtually all the Cold Spring and other Bethesda/Potomac smartest kids are blocked and back at their home school. This changes the dynamic at TPMS where the bottom of the pack is no longer just the in bound kids but many more so no more winning merit based competitions.

Perhaps MCPS could lobby these competitions to give TPMS and other Silver Spring schools an extra 20 pt bonus so they get to do better without actually performing better.

[Anonymous]

I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am sure you have the data. Here is what I found for the 7th grade:

2018 TPMS has 9 7th grade honor rolls (not impacted by the new selection)
2019 TPMS has 4 7th grade honor rolls (impacted by the new selection)

You still want us to believe that the magnet program has got better?

This doesn't feel like an apples to apples comparison, because the 2018 data has 1800 more students and goes down to a score of 15. The 2019 data only goes down to a score of 19.

But even if we look at these two sets of data, something interesting emerges. Even if we find that this year's 7th graders are not placing as high as last year's 7th graders in this math competition, this year's 6th graders are doing better.

So, what if this isn't about TPMS "declining" but rather about whether this one year had some natural flux in kids who were motivated by competition math, and now that number is back up for normal reasons like "kids are different, and different batches of kids will be interested in different things."

The honor roll threshold is decided by the lowest score of the top 5%. More contestants in a year can not explain away the fact that the relative decline of the magnet program. Your defense of the “ever stronger” TPMS magnet program has not been supported by any hard data.

You cannot base a judgement of "relative decline" on a single year of data. This year's 6th graders did better in the same test than last year's 6th graders. Does this denote that TPMS is improving? Or does it denote that there will be natural fluctuations in performance depending on a wide variety of factors?

Of course there are natural fluctuations, but a sharp decrease of 5/9 = 56%? Spin it anyway you want. I don’t have access to all the data. Maybe we can compare the 6th graders selected by the new process with the old process. You have to go back three years and longer for that.

All I know is that recently frost defeated TPMS twice in a row in mathleague and now again in Mathcounts. you said there are x number of amc 8 honor rolls this year. Then it turns out TPMS amc 8 performance has obviously been negatively impacted by the “improved” selection process. I don’t think it convincing to call it natural fluctuations.

PP here. If you are a TPMS teacher I can understand your position, but please don’t insult us by calling it an “improved” selection process.

let's call it the fairer process that identifies gifted kids instead of the most prepped

Wait... isn't there agreement by both sides here that the new criteria makes local school cohort one of the key factors for selection? In other words, even supporters of the new policy don't argue that the new system is designed to identify the most gifted kids. It's not. It's designed to assign kids to TPMS that come from a home school that doesn't have a cohort.

I actually support the new criteria, but I think we should be clear about what it is, and why it's being used. Saying that it's designed to find more gifted kids than the prior one isn't honest.

[Anonymous]

I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

If you've seen the data, especially the actual map scores its glaringly obvious that the smart kids are clustered in Rockville/Bethesda/Potomac. Those areas happen to be wealthier. At this level wealth is not really the driving reason for the performance. In fact these kids are not coming from the wealthiest families in those areas. Its a combination of inherited IQ from having extremely smart parents and parents with more education. The reason they congregate in particular areas is that smart parents want to live near other smart parents. They will prioritize school rankings over all other factors and usually have enough money from being successful smart people to afford it.

[Anonymous]

This thread is so distasteful. Why do people have to tear down kids? I don’t have kids at either school but i just want to say that I think its phenomenal that they are engaging with math and I wish all these kids the best.
If you feel the need to say negative stuff about a bunch of kids, anonymously on the internet, I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I will never understand why people think kids are smarter just because they are from wealthier areas. Obviously prep and opportunities play a huge role. Certain kids from the the west side may have better scores at this snapshot in time, but that does not mean they are more intelligent. And certainly a math competition doesn't tell the whole story.

If you've seen the data, especially the actual map scores its glaringly obvious that the smart kids are clustered in Rockville/Bethesda/Potomac. Those areas happen to be wealthier. At this level wealth is not really the driving reason for the performance. In fact these kids are not coming from the wealthiest families in those areas. Its a combination of inherited IQ from having extremely smart parents and parents with more education. The reason they congregate in particular areas is that smart parents want to live near other smart parents. They will prioritize school rankings over all other factors and usually have enough money from being successful smart people to afford it.

Pretty sure MAP is not an IQ test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so distasteful. Why do people have to tear down kids? I don’t have kids at either school but i just want to say that I think its phenomenal that they are engaging with math and I wish all these kids the best.
If you feel the need to say negative stuff about a bunch of kids, anonymously on the internet, I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities.

It is sad, isn’t it? We are talking about our children. How would you explain it to your child who has just been rejected? Oh, honey, don’t be upset. They say that they have a better selection process now. It has nothing to do with the rumors you heard at school?